🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
> 
> Across the country, the number of computer science majors
> at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
> decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
> blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
> Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
> as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
> across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
> salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
> 
> for full article please see:
> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-science-20180218.html
> 

I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
the money.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 4:17:28 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:

> > The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
> > 
> > Across the country, the number of computer science majors
> > at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
> > decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
> > blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
> > Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
> > as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
> > across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
> > salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
> > 
> > for full article please see:
> > http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-science-20180218.html
> > 
> 
> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
> the money.

Well...when I started years ago, a lot of computer personnel were
people who were in another field* and for various reasons, found
themselves working as a programmer**.  It wasn't that they were
interested specifically in computers but rather circumstances of
life put them there.

* Literally A to Z--airline pilot to zoologist, bartender, welder,
pretty much every field.  (Never saw a former professional athlete
or actor, though, but there certainly could've been.)

** Many people were working in some paperwork job at a large 
corporation and were selected to be trained as a programmer for
the company's new or expanding computer.
  Others found themselves laid off or otherwise out of a job,
so they went to community college and got an associate degree
in programming since it looked like the best career option.


When I read the article, I wonder if any of them in their
"algorithm training" will also learn mundane tasks like getting
out the payroll or profit & loss statement.

On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>> 
>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors
>> at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
>> decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
>> blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
>> Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
>> as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
>> across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
>> salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>> 
>> for full article please see:
>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-science-20180218.html
>> 
>
> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
> the money.
>

I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same
for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:

> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>> [snip]
>
> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
> the money.

I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
money lay.

Oh, well.  Newton ended up at the Mint but at least he did a little
serious work first. :-)

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On 21 Feb 2018 22:58:49 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:

>On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>> 
>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors
>>> at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
>>> decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
>>> blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
>>> Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
>>> as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
>>> across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
>>> salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>> 
>>> for full article please see:
>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-science-20180218.html
>>> 
>>
>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
>> the money.
>>
>
>I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
>until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same
>for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.

Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.

On 2/21/2018 4:58 PM, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>
>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors
>>> at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
>>> decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
>>> blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
>>> Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
>>> as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
>>> across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
>>> salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>>
>>> for full article please see:
>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-science-20180218.html
>>>
>>
>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but
>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for
>> the money.
>>
> 
> I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
> until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same
> for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.
> 
> 

Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and off-putting as 
cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually enjoy debugging... I've 
not been in that rare company myself.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2/21/2018 6:10 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>> [snip]
>>
>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but
>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for
>> the money.
> 
> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
> money lay.
> 

The "real money" may lie in business...  but there are better direct 
routes to a business career than mixing in the tech world.  IMO.

> Oh, well.  Newton ended up at the Mint but at least he did a little
> serious work first. :-)
> 

In the later years of his life, Newton pursued alchemy...


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 22/02/2018 07:54, Charles Richmond wrote:

> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and off-putting as 
> cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually enjoy debugging... I've 
> not been in that rare company myself.

I have to admit that I find debugging more satisfying than coding. I 
used to gear my coding towards debugging with accessible variables, 
clear structure etc. I was always later than my colleagues finishing the 
coding but usually I was one of the first to complete debuggung and testing.

I do like Java for its clean structure but it does a lot of the 
debugging and error prevention for you, takes away the fun.
Now Python is great for debugging, nothing quite like an int suddenly 
becoming a string for making a fun debugging problem.

Andy

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:39:59 +0000, AndyW wrote:

> On 22/02/2018 07:54, Charles Richmond wrote:
> 
>> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and off-putting as
>> cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually enjoy debugging... I've
>> not been in that rare company myself.
> 
> I have to admit that I find debugging more satisfying than coding. I
> used to gear my coding towards debugging with accessible variables,
> clear structure etc. I was always later than my colleagues finishing the
> coding but usually I was one of the first to complete debuggung and
> testing.

I once saw a theory that programmers are carelewss with code because they 
secretly enjoy the challenge of debugging!

Python? Try assembly language - or, if you are old enough to remember 
BCPL, that's a language where you can store the address of some code in a 
label and GOTO somewhere completely different...



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 22/02/2018 09:51, Bob Eager wrote:
> 
> Python? Try assembly language - or, if you are old enough to remember
> BCPL, that's a language where you can store the address of some code in a
> label and GOTO somewhere completely different...

BCPL, C and CORAL, to my mind, all had one thing in common, and that
was to represent most of the capability of assembly language but
presented as a high level language, ie, in a human context as
opposed to a machine context.

AIUI the capability in C to cast a hex number as an integer, for 
example, address was to enable access to memory mapped I/O and
such things as interrupt vectors.

The major failing of C as a high level language is that logical
and relational AND and OR operators are at the same precedence whereas
logical should be higher thus ridding the necessity of extra brackets.

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:39:59 +0000, AndyW wrote:
>
>> On 22/02/2018 07:54, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and off-putting as
>>> cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually enjoy debugging... I've
>>> not been in that rare company myself.
>>
>> I have to admit that I find debugging more satisfying than coding. I
>> used to gear my coding towards debugging with accessible variables,
>> clear structure etc. I was always later than my colleagues finishing the
>> coding but usually I was one of the first to complete debuggung and
>> testing.
>
> I once saw a theory that programmers are carelewss with code because they
> secretly enjoy the challenge of debugging!

Nah.  That's boring debugging.

>
> Python? Try assembly language - or, if you are old enough to remember
> BCPL, that's a language where you can store the address of some code in a
> label and GOTO somewhere completely different...

JMF wanted his business cards to say, "Have EDDT, Will Travel".  I
put it one his gravestone.  If TW, JMF and I had decided to
quit DEC the first time TOPS-10 was cancelled, the "Have EDDT.."
would have been our motto.

/BAH

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> JMF wanted his business cards to say, "Have EDDT, Will Travel".  I put
> it one his gravestone.  If TW, JMF and I had decided to quit DEC the
> first time TOPS-10 was cancelled, the "Have EDDT.."  would have been
> our motto.

year after I had 2hr intro to programming, univ. hired me fulltime to be
responsible for ibm mainframe production systems (academic as well as
administration). I hated bugs, getting calls to fix something
... sometimes in the middle of the night ... other times when i was
concentrating on some extremely complex progamming ... with regarding to
interrupting concentration ... from "Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#31 High Level Language Systems was Re: computer books/authors (Re: FA:

Real Programmers never work 9 to 5.  If any Real Programmers are
around at 9 AM, it's because they were up all night.

... aka offshift work frequently minimizes interrupts. My adversing to
bugs got worse when bugs became utilized for exploits ... led to last
product at IBM was HA/CMP ... no single point of failure ...  and "fail
safe" ... past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
some related posts in C language related bugs&exploits
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#buffer
and "availability" related posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#available

as aside, I thot something other than contact on business cards had no
point, tried hard to have it left blank ... then was told that there was
corporate standard that something had to be there ... then would just
have "staff member" ... as innoxious and meaningless as possible.

the other was we were first to have corporate internet email address
... and then csnet (arpanet/internet) email address.  Then corporate
said that business cards were only for customer contact information and
email addresses had to be removed. We pointed out that met then that it
also applied to internal "tieline" phone number ...  which would also
have to be removed ... and csnet email could remain. old email
about being first with csnet gateway (also arpanet, 1982, slightly
before internetworking change over)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/internet.htm#email821022
and
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#email821022

more topic drift ... internetworking TCP/IP transition, from csnet
liaison
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#email821230
and
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#email830202

I did go through a period putting random zippy at end of email
... also added selection from 6670 file ... recent reference
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#103 1956 -- circuit reliability book

and now just stay with the following static.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2018 22:58:49 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>> 
>>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors
>>>> at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
>>>> decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
>>>> blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
>>>> Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
>>>> as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
>>>> across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
>>>> salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>>> 
>>>> for full article please see:
>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-science-20180218.html
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
>>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
>>> the money.
>>> 
>> 
>> I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
>> until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same
>> for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.
> 
> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
> 

Always was like that. A local community college had great success with a
program that included COBOL, JCL, and CICS. Graduates usually had jobs
waiting when they got out.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-02-22, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>> [snip]
>>
>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but 
>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for 
>> the money.
>
> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
> money lay.
>
> Oh, well.  Newton ended up at the Mint but at least he did a little
> serious work first. :-)

I've worked on code written by one of those people who viewed
programming as a stepping stone to management.  Hell hath no
fury like that of one of those managers who sees what you've
done to his precious ancient spaghetti.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 2018-02-22, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.

That's why I dropped out of CS in 1971, and got a programming job
in the Real World [tm].  Getting those payrolls and receivables out
took a change in mindset which turned out to be quite worthwhile.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 2/22/2018 1:29 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-22, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
>> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
>> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
>> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
> 
> That's why I dropped out of CS in 1971, and got a programming job
> in the Real World [tm].  Getting those payrolls and receivables out
> took a change in mindset which turned out to be quite worthwhile.
> 

Planning and design are important... but I enjoy hammering out the 
code!!!  Part of the attraction of computers (for me and I think for 
many others) is the idea that the computer will *automatically* do work 
for you after you get the program right.  So I think many programmers 
originally got "sucked in" by laziness... the idea that the machine will 
do all the work.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2/22/2018 1:29 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-22, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
>> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but
>>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for
>>> the money.
>>
>> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
>> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
>> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
>> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
>> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
>> money lay.
>>
>> Oh, well.  Newton ended up at the Mint but at least he did a little
>> serious work first. :-)
> 
> I've worked on code written by one of those people who viewed
> programming as a stepping stone to management.  Hell hath no
> fury like that of one of those managers who sees what you've
> done to his precious ancient spaghetti.
> 

Once I took over a program by a wretched programmer who was fired... 
*not* promoted.  I wish I still had the source code he wrote!  You'd 
*never* believe some of the stupid things he did.

In the C programming language, he used FALSE as a variable and made it 
equal to 1.  Instead of using a function for repeated code, he just 
repeated the code over and over whenever it was needed.  Indentation was 
all over the place with *no* system at all. This code was so bad (and 
since I *knew* what the program was supposed to do), I threw out his 
code and re-wrote the whole program.  Believe me... I was *much* better 
off doing this...  and got a working program much faster!

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Thu, 2018-02-22, Charles Richmond wrote:
...
> Once I took over a program by a wretched programmer who was fired... 
> *not* promoted.  I wish I still had the source code he wrote!  You'd 
> *never* believe some of the stupid things he did.
>
> In the C programming language, he used FALSE as a variable and made it 
> equal to 1.  Instead of using a function for repeated code, he just 
> repeated the code over and over whenever it was needed.  Indentation was 
> all over the place with *no* system at all. This code was so bad (and 
> since I *knew* what the program was supposed to do), I threw out his 
> code and re-wrote the whole program.

Had he been /really/ clever, he'd have made sure noone knew precisely
what the program was supposed to do ...

> Believe me... I was *much* better off doing this...  and got a
> working program much faster!

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:19:09 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2018 22:58:49 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors at
>>>>> doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last decade. 
It’s
>>>>> much hotter than it was during the dot-com blitz in the late 1990s,
>>>>> according to the national Computing Research Association. The group
>>>>> refers to the current surge as “Generation CS,” fueled by the
>>>>> pervasiveness of computing across society and the plethora of jobs,
>>>>> some with six-figure salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> for full article please see:
>>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-
science-20180218.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming...
>>>> but I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in
>>>> this for the money.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
>>> until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same for
>>> computers, when the first debugging has to be done.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
>> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
>> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
>> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
>> 
>> 
> Always was like that. A local community college had great success with a
> program that included COBOL, JCL, and CICS. Graduates usually had jobs
> waiting when they got out.

We used to have the sixth week of the first term in CS as a 'project 
week'. Really as a bit of a rest. In theory the students were suppose to 
do *something*. We laid on compulsory stuff for two and a half days and 
then let them have a long weekend.

So, after five weeks of CS, they got a two and a half day intensive 
course on UNIX (command line only) and shell programming.

I am still (somewhere welse) giving that course. It's a bit of a culture 
shock.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 2018-02-22, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 2/22/2018 1:29 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-22, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
>>> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
>>> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
>>> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
>> 
>> That's why I dropped out of CS in 1971, and got a programming job
>> in the Real World [tm].  Getting those payrolls and receivables out
>> took a change in mindset which turned out to be quite worthwhile.
>
> Planning and design are important... but I enjoy hammering out the 
> code!!!  Part of the attraction of computers (for me and I think for 
> many others) is the idea that the computer will *automatically* do work 
> for you after you get the program right.  So I think many programmers 
> originally got "sucked in" by laziness... the idea that the machine will 
> do all the work.

Eventually it does.  It just takes enough work to get there that you have
to ask yourself whether it's worth it.  For one-shot jobs, often not.
(But remember, the definition of a one-shot job is something that a
user wants only once... this week.)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> Planning and design are important... but I enjoy hammering out the
> code!!!  Part of the attraction of computers (for me and I think for
> many others) is the idea that the computer will *automatically* do
> work for you after you get the program right.  So I think many
> programmers originally got "sucked in" by laziness... the idea that
> the machine will do all the work.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#56 Computer science hot major in college (article)

I was brought into as consultant at small client/server startup that
wanted to do payment transactions on their server. They also had
invented this technology they called "SSL" they wanted to use ... that
is now frequently called "electronic commerce". I had also made several
security recommendations, many of which were almost immediately
violated, continuing to account for some number of exploits.

I would include in talks that it takes 4-10 the effort to take a well
designed, implemented and tested application and turn it into a
"service" (contingency for failures, exploits, attacks, availability,
etc). some past posts mentioning 4-10 time effort:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#62 IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#49 "Perfect" or "Provable" security both crypto and non-crypto?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#20 The System/360 Model 20 Wasn't As Bad As All That
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#37 Is computer history taught now?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#78 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#77 PSI MIPS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007o.html#23 Outsourcing loosing steam?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#54 Industry Standard Time To Analyze A Line Of Code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#41 IBM announced z10 ..why so fast...any problem on z 9
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#50 fraying infrastructure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#35 Builders V. Breakers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#0 Is SUN going to become x86'ed ??
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#27 PDCA vs. OODA
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#67 Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#44 Faster, Better, Cheaper: Why Not Pick All Three?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#13 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#86 Economic Failures of HTTPS Encryption
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#146 LEO
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#10 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#16 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#27 History of Mainframe Cloud
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#23 MVS vs HASP vs JES (was 2821)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017i.html#18 progress in e-mail, such as AOL
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#42 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
>> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
>> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
>> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
>> 
> 
> Always was like that. A local community college had great success with a
> program that included COBOL, JCL, and CICS. Graduates usually had jobs
> waiting when they got out.

In 1964, when my school had one computer (IBM 1620) they offered a
course in "computer programming" for which I signed up.  It was taught
by a guy seconded from industry.  He specified a textbook on numerical
methods and proposed to teach us that.  Half the class announced that
they would drop the course if he didn't teach us how write programs.

Despite his protest that you can't write programs unless you know the
math, he saw the light and gave us an intro to Fortran.  We each wrote
one small program related to our disparate majors -- key punch, cards,
submit to operator, line printer and all that.

Didn't touch a computer again until 1980 when I borrowed an Apple ][
and learned Basic.  Then not again for seven years, when I got an
Osborne I, learned C, z80 assembler.  Now I'm the digital equivalent
of a chronic alcoholic.  Might never have happened if I'd dropped that
course in '64.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:21:26 GMT, Mike Spencer 
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> 
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
>>> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
>>> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on 
the
>>> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
>>> 
>> 
>> Always was like that. A local community college had great success with 
a
>> program that included COBOL, JCL, and CICS. Graduates usually had jobs
>> waiting when they got out.
> 
> In 1964, when my school had one computer (IBM 1620) they offered a
> course in "computer programming" for which I signed up.  It was taught
> by a guy seconded from industry.  He specified a textbook on numerical
> methods and proposed to teach us that.  Half the class announced that
> they would drop the course if he didn't teach us how write programs.
> 
> Despite his protest that you can't write programs unless you know the
> math, he saw the light and gave us an intro to Fortran.  We each wrote
> one small program related to our disparate majors -- key punch, cards,
> submit to operator, line printer and all that.
> 
> Didn't touch a computer again until 1980 when I borrowed an Apple ][
> and learned Basic.  Then not again for seven years, when I got an
> Osborne I, learned C, z80 assembler.  Now I'm the digital equivalent
> of a chronic alcoholic.  Might never have happened if I'd dropped that
> course in '64.
> 

I'm still coding in 8086 asm! (alright, I need a 286 for popa) see clax 
if interested. If not then erm don't.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:29:15 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: 

> On 2018-02-22, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
>> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming...
>>> but I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in
>>> this for the money.
>>
>> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
>> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
>> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
>> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
>> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
>> money lay.
>>
>> Oh, well.  Newton ended up at the Mint but at least he did a little
>> serious work first. :-)
> 
> I've worked on code written by one of those people who viewed
> programming as a stepping stone to management.  Hell hath no
> fury like that of one of those managers who sees what you've
> done to his precious ancient spaghetti.
> 

I heard /read somewhere that Gates did an awful job of the BasicA "fill" 
command, but later no-one dared remove the code.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> JMF wanted his business cards to say, "Have EDDT, Will Travel".  I put
>> it one his gravestone.  If TW, JMF and I had decided to quit DEC the
>> first time TOPS-10 was cancelled, the "Have EDDT.."  would have been
>> our motto.
>
> year after I had 2hr intro to programming, univ. hired me fulltime to be
> responsible for ibm mainframe production systems (academic as well as
> administration). I hated bugs, getting calls to fix something
> ... sometimes in the middle of the night ... other times when i was
> concentrating on some extremely complex progamming ... with regarding to
> interrupting concentration ... from "Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche"
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#31 High Level Language Systems was
Re: computer books/authors (Re: FA:

I would go into work at 04:00 so I could get at least 4 hours of no
stupid interruptions.  Part of my job was to deal with interruptions
so that the other developers didnt' get bothered with the small stuff.
the people who didn't want to "bother" JMf or TW wree the ones
who had real problems and needed to bother them.  I'd set up a
meeting in JMF's or TW's office and escort the guy there.  I'd
introduce them and stay until I figured that the guy needing
help didn't need mine anymore.


>
> Real Programmers never work 9 to 5.  If any Real Programmers are
> around at 9 AM, it's because they were up all night.

Not in our shop.  Those programmers leave before the machines have
to be booted up for timesharing (and they could avoid management). :-)

>
> ... aka offshift work frequently minimizes interrupts. My adversing to
> bugs got worse when bugs became utilized for exploits ... led to last
> product at IBM was HA/CMP ... no single point of failure ...  and "fail
> safe" ... past posts

And then there are those "asspects" which aren't really bugs but
shouldn't be there anyway.  (The spelling was intentional.)

> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
> some related posts in C language related bugs&exploits
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#buffer
> and "availability" related posts
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#available
>
> as aside, I thot something other than contact on business cards had no
> point, tried hard to have it left blank ... then was told that there was
> corporate standard that something had to be there ... then would just
> have "staff member" ... as innoxious and meaningless as possible.
>
> the other was we were first to have corporate internet email address
> ... and then csnet (arpanet/internet) email address.  Then corporate
> said that business cards were only for customer contact information and
> email addresses had to be removed. We pointed out that met then that it
> also applied to internal "tieline" phone number ...  which would also
> have to be removed ... and csnet email could remain. old email
> about being first with csnet gateway (also arpanet, 1982, slightly
> before internetworking change over)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/internet.htm#email821022
> and
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#email821022

We had to have business cards, too.  It was a sign of being a
"grown-up".  I just put mine in my desk and forgot about them.
When Palmer became CEO, he tried to destroy anything that had
to do with KO, no matter what the cost.  One of the stupidest
things Palmer edicted was that the color of the business cards
had to change from the DEC blue to burgandy.  Every salaried
person was forced to order 1000 new business cards.

>
> more topic drift ... internetworking TCP/IP transition, from csnet
> liaison
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#email821230
> and
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#email830202
>
> I did go through a period putting random zippy at end of email
> ... also added selection from 6670 file ... recent reference
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#103 1956 -- circuit reliability book
>
> and now just stay with the following static.

I never used mine.  I assumed nobody was interested.

/BAH

>

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:11:01 PM UTC-5, Mike Spencer wrote:

> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
> money lay.

Many companies realized that tech people needed a growth track
that was not management, such as job titles of "super tech".
How far that was implemented I cannot say.

It certainly seemed that the typical promotion path for top-
notch programmers was into management.  Unfortunately, the
skillset for managers is different, sometimes very different
than for programmers.

FWIW, I knew several great programmers who became horrible managers.

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 1:21:32 AM UTC-5, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, "Computer Scientists" these days don't seem to have to
> >> do mundane things like writing code.  And they get snarky if anyone
> >> suggests that there's anything wrong with this--they're working on the
> >> Great Advances, code is for the trade schools, according to them.
> >> 
> > 
> > Always was like that. A local community college had great success with a
> > program that included COBOL, JCL, and CICS. Graduates usually had jobs
> > waiting when they got out.
> 
> In 1964, when my school had one computer (IBM 1620) they offered a
> course in "computer programming" for which I signed up.  It was taught
> by a guy seconded from industry.  He specified a textbook on numerical
> methods and proposed to teach us that.  Half the class announced that
> they would drop the course if he didn't teach us how write programs.
> 
> Despite his protest that you can't write programs unless you know the
> math, he saw the light and gave us an intro to Fortran.  We each wrote
> one small program related to our disparate majors -- key punch, cards,
> submit to operator, line printer and all that.
> 
> Didn't touch a computer again until 1980 when I borrowed an Apple ][
> and learned Basic.  Then not again for seven years, when I got an
> Osborne I, learned C, z80 assembler.  Now I'm the digital equivalent
> of a chronic alcoholic.  Might never have happened if I'd dropped that
> course in '64.


Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.

However, beyond that is dependent on the specialty.  Generally
speaking, business application analysts should have some
exposure to accounting and economics.  (Companies vary
greatly on what work is done by "systems analysts", 
"programmer/analysts", and "programmers".)

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:11:01 PM UTC-5, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
>> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
>> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
>> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
>> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
>> money lay.
>
>Many companies realized that tech people needed a growth track
>that was not management, such as job titles of "super tech".
>How far that was implemented I cannot say.
>

Most of the companies in the silly valley have implemented dual
technical and management tracks.   In our company, the highest
title on the technical track is "Fellow" (Equiv to a mgmt VP),
before that is "Distinguished Engineer" and so forth.

On 23 Feb 2018 02:21:26 -0400
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> In 1964, when my school had one computer (IBM 1620) they offered a
> course in "computer programming" for which I signed up.  It was taught
> by a guy seconded from industry.  He specified a textbook on numerical
> methods and proposed to teach us that.  Half the class announced that
> they would drop the course if he didn't teach us how write programs.

Hot damn! My first was a 1620 -- doesn't everyone remember their first? 
We were a Mech Eng class and computers were not on our syllabus, but we
had an optional hour lecture a week on programming in Fortran II for
the 1620.  Best attended lecture series of that year.   Time on the
1620 was free of charge and had the side effect of developing our
negotiation skills because running order was entirely arranged next to
the 1620 by the contestants (errr?) each with a deck of cards in their
hand.  

Deck of cards useless as a weapon because they'd fly out of order of
course.


Mike

On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.

Better still, a solid background in logic.  Any programmer worth
his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem, whether he knows
its name or not.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.

That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
of the students dropped off).

> Better still, a solid background in logic.

I think of it as having a talent for working within systems of rules.
Maths is a good way to exercise that talent.  I suppose board games
are too, but I'm a lousy player.

But I'm not sure ... nowadays I tend to think of programming as a
craft.  I never used much of my formal training, and some of the best
programmers I've worked with had none.

> Any programmer worth his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem,
> whether he knows its name or not.

I had forgotten the name, but yes.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 24 Feb 2018 01:22:22 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 
> > Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
> > should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
> > is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
> 
> Better still, a solid background in logic.  Any programmer worth
> his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem, whether he knows
> its name or not.

	Both are essential, I'd also like to see some awareness of
algorithmic complexity.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:00:41 +0000
Mike Causer <m.r.c...@gogglemail.com> wrote:

> Deck of cards useless as a weapon because they'd fly out of order of
> course.

	Elastic bands round the decks.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 21:10:02 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:11:01 PM UTC-5, Mike Spencer wrote:

> >Many companies realized that tech people needed a growth track
> >that was not management, such as job titles of "super tech".
> >How far that was implemented I cannot say.
> >
> 
> Most of the companies in the silly valley have implemented dual
> technical and management tracks.   In our company, the highest
> title on the technical track is "Fellow" (Equiv to a mgmt VP),
> before that is "Distinguished Engineer" and so forth.

	Not just in the silly valley, the practice has spread into a lot of
the tech industry.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 24 Feb 2018 08:29:08 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>
>That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
>do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
>of the students dropped off).
>
>> Better still, a solid background in logic.
>
>I think of it as having a talent for working within systems of rules.
>Maths is a good way to exercise that talent.  I suppose board games
>are too, but I'm a lousy player.
>
>But I'm not sure ... nowadays I tend to think of programming as a
>craft.  I never used much of my formal training, and some of the best
>programmers I've worked with had none.
>
>> Any programmer worth his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem,
>> whether he knows its name or not.
>
>I had forgotten the name, but yes.
>
>/Jorgen

I looked it up... never used it in any programming class, and never
used it to repair a computer. I had to take a math minor so I probably
had it in algebra. Don't remember it from the calculus classes I took,
I have gladly forgotten my calculus.

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 24 Feb 2018 08:29:08 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>>
>>That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
>>do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
>>of the students dropped off).
>>
>>> Better still, a solid background in logic.

My post about the prof who meant to make a course in "computer
programming" consist of "mumerical methods" wasn't meant to deprecate
math as background for programming.  Most or all of the people in the
course were majors in the sciences with attendant requirements for
calculus, statistics and the like.

In 1964, programmers weren't building GUIs, designing addictive phone
apps or data collection scripts for web pages.  (What then passed for)
big data -- payrolls, say, or policy holder databases -- were just
getting off the ground, still on cards .  So the prof did have a
point: If you went into engineering industry as a programmer, you
might be asked to determine numerically, given blueprints and material
specs, how much a 90 storey building would sway or aircraft wings
wobble. Numerical solution of differential equations was the word.

Notably, Atansoff's ABC was then more recent than the first public web
server is today.  So the prof could be forgiven for wanting to teach
the Rung-Kutta method instead of Fortran.  It just wasn't what the
enrollees in the class were looking for.


>> I think of it as having a talent for working within systems of rules.
>> Maths is a good way to exercise that talent.  I suppose board games
>> are too, but I'm a lousy player.
>>
>> But I'm not sure ... nowadays I tend to think of programming as a
>> craft.  I never used much of my formal training, and some of the best
>> programmers I've worked with had none.
>>
>>> Any programmer worth his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem,
>>> whether he knows its name or not.
>>
>>I had forgotten the name, but yes.
>>
>>/Jorgen
> 
> I looked it up... never used it in any programming class, and never
> used it to repair a computer. I had to take a math minor so I probably
> had it in algebra. Don't remember it from the calculus classes I took,
> I have gladly forgotten my calculus.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On 2/24/2018 8:35 AM, JimP wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2018 08:29:08 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>>
>> That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
>> do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
>> of the students dropped off).
>>
>>> Better still, a solid background in logic.
>>
>> I think of it as having a talent for working within systems of rules.
>> Maths is a good way to exercise that talent.  I suppose board games
>> are too, but I'm a lousy player.
>>
>> But I'm not sure ... nowadays I tend to think of programming as a
>> craft.  I never used much of my formal training, and some of the best
>> programmers I've worked with had none.
>>
>>> Any programmer worth his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem,
>>> whether he knows its name or not.
>>
>> I had forgotten the name, but yes.
>>
>> /Jorgen
> 
> I looked it up... never used it in any programming class, and never
> used it to repair a computer. I had to take a math minor so I probably
> had it in algebra. Don't remember it from the calculus classes I took,
> I have gladly forgotten my calculus.
> 

not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)

not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2/24/2018 1:42 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 24 Feb 2018 08:29:08 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>>>
>>> That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
>>> do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
>>> of the students dropped off).
>>>
>>>> Better still, a solid background in logic.
> 
> My post about the prof who meant to make a course in "computer
> programming" consist of "mumerical methods" wasn't meant to deprecate
> math as background for programming.  Most or all of the people in the
> course were majors in the sciences with attendant requirements for
> calculus, statistics and the like.
> 
> In 1964, programmers weren't building GUIs, designing addictive phone
> apps or data collection scripts for web pages.  (What then passed for)
> big data -- payrolls, say, or policy holder databases -- were just
> getting off the ground, still on cards .  So the prof did have a
> point: If you went into engineering industry as a programmer, you
> might be asked to determine numerically, given blueprints and material
> specs, how much a 90 storey building would sway or aircraft wings
> wobble. Numerical solution of differential equations was the word.
> 
> Notably, Atansoff's ABC was then more recent than the first public web
> server is today.  So the prof could be forgiven for wanting to teach
> the Rung-Kutta method instead of Fortran.  It just wasn't what the
> enrollees in the class were looking for.
> 
> 

At university I took numerical methods one and two... both semesters. 
The examples in the book were FORTRAN... although the professor let us 
use any language for the second semester.  (Except APL...  he wanted our 
code to do the work instead of APL operators!  :-) )

I especially liked Bairstow's Method.  Bairstow's method is an efficient 
algorithm for finding the roots of a real polynomial of arbitrary degree.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bairstow%27s_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Bairstow

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2/24/2018 2:53 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2018 01:22:22 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>>
>> Better still, a solid background in logic.  Any programmer worth
>> his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem, whether he knows
>> its name or not.
> 
> 	Both are essential, I'd also like to see some awareness of
> algorithmic complexity.
> 

That kind of thing was covered in Data Structures courses also... 
trees, sorting and searching, etc.   Big O notation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2/23/2018 6:00 PM, Mike Causer wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2018 02:21:26 -0400
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
>> In 1964, when my school had one computer (IBM 1620) they offered a
>> course in "computer programming" for which I signed up.  It was taught
>> by a guy seconded from industry.  He specified a textbook on numerical
>> methods and proposed to teach us that.  Half the class announced that
>> they would drop the course if he didn't teach us how write programs.
> 
> Hot damn! My first was a 1620 -- doesn't everyone remember their first?
> We were a Mech Eng class and computers were not on our syllabus, but we
> had an optional hour lecture a week on programming in Fortran II for
> the 1620.  Best attended lecture series of that year.   Time on the
> 1620 was free of charge and had the side effect of developing our
> negotiation skills because running order was entirely arranged next to
> the 1620 by the contestants (errr?) each with a deck of cards in their
> hand.
> 

Same here...  IBM 1620 model II with a hard disk.  Our textbook was a 
hundred page folded book by Daniel D. McCracken.   90% of it was FORTRAN 
II with a little FORTRAN IV at the end.  It was a 2 credit hour course 
but it had a lab part.  The 1620 was "open shop" and we punched our own 
cards.


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2/24/2018 11:14 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 2/23/2018 6:00 PM, Mike Causer wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2018 02:21:26 -0400
>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>>> In 1964, when my school had one computer (IBM 1620) they offered a
>>> course in "computer programming" for which I signed up.  It was taught
>>> by a guy seconded from industry.  He specified a textbook on numerical
>>> methods and proposed to teach us that.  Half the class announced that
>>> they would drop the course if he didn't teach us how write programs.
>>
>> Hot damn! My first was a 1620 -- doesn't everyone remember their first?
>> We were a Mech Eng class and computers were not on our syllabus, but we
>> had an optional hour lecture a week on programming in Fortran II for
>> the 1620.  Best attended lecture series of that year.   Time on the
>> 1620 was free of charge and had the side effect of developing our
>> negotiation skills because running order was entirely arranged next to
>> the 1620 by the contestants (errr?) each with a deck of cards in their
>> hand.
>>
> 
> Same here...  IBM 1620 model II with a hard disk.  Our textbook was a 
> hundred page folded book by Daniel D. McCracken.   90% of it was 
> FORTRAN II with a little FORTRAN IV at the end.  It was a 2 credit 
> hour course but it had a lab part.  The 1620 was "open shop" and we 
> punched our own cards.
> 
> 
Ah, yes. Our copy of McCracken was perfect bound, but IIRC didn't have 
anything about FORTRAN IV. Maybe an earlier edition? We weren't a very 
large school or engineering class (this was 1965), and we punched our 
own cards. And were shown how to boot the 1620 up (switch these things 
on, wait, load the cold start deck), and told "this window is never 
locked, so if you need to use the computer after hours, climb in 
there". I don't actually remember an "official" way to submit programs 
(there must have been one), but do remember sitting around the 
computer room BS'ing with other students and idly watching the 
blinkenlights... if a repeating pattern became obvious, it usually 
meant somebody had an endless loop.

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 22/02/2018 09:51, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>> Python? Try assembly language - or, if you are old enough to remember
>> BCPL, that's a language where you can store the address of some code in a
>> label and GOTO somewhere completely different...
>
> BCPL, C and CORAL, to my mind, all had one thing in common, and that
> was to represent most of the capability of assembly language but
> presented as a high level language, ie, in a human context as
> opposed to a machine context.
>
> AIUI the capability in C to cast a hex number as an integer, for
> example, address was to enable access to memory mapped I/O and
> such things as interrupt vectors.
>
> The major failing of C as a high level language is that logical
> and relational AND and OR operators are at the same precedence whereas
> logical should be higher thus ridding the necessity of extra brackets.

Hmm, code that relies on precedence rather than parens is not good code.
IMO.

-- 
Dan Espen

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/2018 8:35 AM, JimP wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2018 08:29:08 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>>> 
>>> That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
>>> do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
>>> of the students dropped off).
>>> 
>>>> Better still, a solid background in logic.
>>> 
>>> I think of it as having a talent for working within systems of rules.
>>> Maths is a good way to exercise that talent.  I suppose board games
>>> are too, but I'm a lousy player.
>>> 
>>> But I'm not sure ... nowadays I tend to think of programming as a
>>> craft.  I never used much of my formal training, and some of the best
>>> programmers I've worked with had none.
>>> 
>>>> Any programmer worth his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem,
>>>> whether he knows its name or not.
>>> 
>>> I had forgotten the name, but yes.
>>> 
>>> /Jorgen
>> 
>> I looked it up... never used it in any programming class, and never
>> used it to repair a computer. I had to take a math minor so I probably
>> had it in algebra. Don't remember it from the calculus classes I took,
>> I have gladly forgotten my calculus.
>> 
> 
> not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)
> 
> not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B)
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan
> 

As a beginning programmer I had some trouble with this. I think I've got it
now;-)

-- 
Pete

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:01:08 -0500
Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > The major failing of C as a high level language is that logical
> > and relational AND and OR operators are at the same precedence whereas
> > logical should be higher thus ridding the necessity of extra brackets.
> 
> Hmm, code that relies on precedence rather than parens is not good code.
> IMO.

	So use LISP :)

	You can go too far though, I think it's fair to assume BODMAS in
any language with infix notation, and to assume that assignment comes way
down the list in languages where an assignment is also an expression.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 24/02/2018 14:35, JimP wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2018 08:29:08 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2018-02-24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think all programmers, whatever their specialty,
>>>> should have a solid background in algebra.  IMHO, if someone
>>>> is weak in algebra, they'll be a weak programmer.
>>
>> That's the stance my university took, around 1990.  You didn't get to
>> do computer science until after some hefty maths courses (where most
>> of the students dropped off).
>>
>>> Better still, a solid background in logic.
>>
>> I think of it as having a talent for working within systems of rules.
>> Maths is a good way to exercise that talent.  I suppose board games
>> are too, but I'm a lousy player.
>>
>> But I'm not sure ... nowadays I tend to think of programming as a
>> craft.  I never used much of my formal training, and some of the best
>> programmers I've worked with had none.
>>
>>> Any programmer worth his salt should know about De Morgan's theorem,
>>> whether he knows its name or not.
>>
>> I had forgotten the name, but yes.
>>
>> /Jorgen
> 
> I looked it up... never used it in any programming class, and never
> used it to repair a computer. I had to take a math minor so I probably
> had it in algebra. Don't remember it from the calculus classes I took,
> I have gladly forgotten my calculus.
> 

De Morgan's theorem is Boolean algebra. The ability to change

IF age > max_age OR age < min_age THEN
   CALL report_age_wrong
ELSE
   candidate_age = age
ENDIF

into

IF age <= max_age AND age >= min_age THEN
   candidate_age = age
ELSE
   CALL report_age_wrong
ENDIF

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>On 2018-02-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:11:01 PM UTC-5, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I professor at MIT I knew from the early 80s to the mid-90s told me
>>>> that he found "these kids smart, scary-smart" but that many of them
>>>> had told him that they were going the tech route only because they'd
>>>> found they were good at it.  Expected to put in some entry time in
>>>> STEM jobs but that they were aiming for management where the real
>>>> money lay.
>>>
>>>Many companies realized that tech people needed a growth track
>>>that was not management, such as job titles of "super tech".
>>>How far that was implemented I cannot say.
>>>
>>
>> Most of the companies in the silly valley have implemented dual
>> technical and management tracks.   In our company, the highest
>> title on the technical track is "Fellow" (Equiv to a mgmt VP),
>> before that is "Distinguished Engineer" and so forth.
>
>I imagine that most of those are technology companies, though? 

 Indeed.

>I worked
>for banks for the last 20-odd years of what I laughingly refer to as my

 Haven't worked for banks, but I understand Visa, which is HQd in
the valley, does have a parallel track promotion track.   Although I'm
not sure job title is as important in the valley as salary/equity, since
employees switch jobs every couple of years.

On 2018-02-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:01:08 -0500
> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> The major failing of C as a high level language is that logical
>>> and relational AND and OR operators are at the same precedence whereas
>>> logical should be higher thus ridding the necessity of extra brackets.
>> 
>> Hmm, code that relies on precedence rather than parens is not good code.
>> IMO.
>
> 	So use LISP :)
>
> 	You can go too far though, I think it's fair to assume BODMAS in
> any language with infix notation, and to assume that assignment comes way
> down the list in languages where an assignment is also an expression.

BODMAS?  Haven't heard that one.  Explain, please.

In my C code I use a few more parentheses than are strictly necesary, e.g.
    if((i > 0) && (i < 10))
but at least there's no ambiguity, and I think it's more readable.

The other argument for extra parentheses is that it can save some pain
if you port the code to another language with different precedence rules.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 26 Feb 2018 16:25:37 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-02-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:01:08 -0500
> > Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> >> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> The major failing of C as a high level language is that logical
> >>> and relational AND and OR operators are at the same precedence whereas
> >>> logical should be higher thus ridding the necessity of extra brackets.
> >> 
> >> Hmm, code that relies on precedence rather than parens is not good
> >> code. IMO.
> >
> > 	So use LISP :)
> >
> > 	You can go too far though, I think it's fair to assume BODMAS in
> > any language with infix notation, and to assume that assignment comes
> > way down the list in languages where an assignment is also an
> > expression.
> 
> BODMAS?  Haven't heard that one.  Explain, please.

	Brackets, Orders, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 26 Feb 2018 16:25:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2018-02-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:01:08 -0500
>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The major failing of C as a high level language is that logical
>>>> and relational AND and OR operators are at the same precedence whereas
>>>> logical should be higher thus ridding the necessity of extra brackets.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, code that relies on precedence rather than parens is not good code.
>>> IMO.
>>
>> 	So use LISP :)
>>
>> 	You can go too far though, I think it's fair to assume BODMAS in
>> any language with infix notation, and to assume that assignment comes way
>> down the list in languages where an assignment is also an expression.
>
>BODMAS?  Haven't heard that one.  Explain, please.
>
>In my C code I use a few more parentheses than are strictly necesary, e.g.
>    if((i > 0) && (i < 10))
>but at least there's no ambiguity, and I think it's more readable.
>
>The other argument for extra parentheses is that it can save some pain
>if you port the code to another language with different precedence rules.

I go back and forth between APL, Visual Basic, C, and Python.  I
finally gave up and started using parens to avoid having to constantly
shift mental gears.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:54:04 +0000
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:00:41 +0000
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@gogglemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Deck of cards useless as a weapon because they'd fly out of order of
> > course.  
> 
> 	Elastic bands round the decks.

Insufficiently reliable says someone who has also dropped a full box of
2400 cards on the London Undergound.  Luckily on the way home after
they were needed.

Mike