"Programmers seem to get off on complexity and detail..."(groups.google.com)
groups.google.com
"Programmers seem to get off on complexity and detail..."
http://groups.google.com/group/mensa.talk.misc/msg/27262b6500c02e87?dmode=source&output=gplain
9 comments
Best couterargument that I've come up with: ask them what a computer really is. As in "a computer is a chunk of metal, glass and plastic that can actually do things when you tell it to". And apparently, our "getting off on detail" and "stupid rules" are working well enough that you feel a need to be frustrated that this slab of plastic sitting on your desk isn't quite as smart as you wish it was. I've seen a lot of people's attitude change when it's explained like that.
An uniformed rant. Not worth anyone's time reading.
Once I've ditched religion and the whole human comedy got simplified I noticed that. I now seek comfort in the complexity of deep abstraction levels (think LISP, programs writing themselves) of programming. That way I feel less like an ape with a great vocal cord and no fur to myself.
The English language is in a period of never-ending flux, so neologisms and compression are acts of making the language more efficient and accessible for any group. It's all about who the target audience is, what you want to communicate, and what will be the most adequate way to communicate with that audience.
"most adequate" - that's a very English (British) thing to optimise for.
" Programming is one of the most difficult branches of applied mathematics; the poorer mathematicians had better remain pure mathematicians."
Edsger Dijkstra-"How do we tell truths that might hurt?" http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/ewd498.html
"I have done a lot of programming."
There are 2 kinds of "a lot of programming":
1. Lots of different technologies and experiences.
2. The same technology and experience over and over again.
I suspect penny is the latter.
There are 2 kinds of "a lot of programming":
1. Lots of different technologies and experiences.
2. The same technology and experience over and over again.
I suspect penny is the latter.
While I agree with your core point, this is basically an ad-hom.
"Penny" is a bit blunt, but she is saying the same things as a lot of other people - keep it simple, use existing words and terminology wherever you can, express yourself clearly, avoid acronyms where they are not helpful, a large amount of code is doing the same simple operations on the same simple types of data - this "bread and butter" manipulation ought to be as easy as it is common.
Is that last part what you are going on when assigning her into group 2?
"Penny" is a bit blunt, but she is saying the same things as a lot of other people - keep it simple, use existing words and terminology wherever you can, express yourself clearly, avoid acronyms where they are not helpful, a large amount of code is doing the same simple operations on the same simple types of data - this "bread and butter" manipulation ought to be as easy as it is common.
Is that last part what you are going on when assigning her into group 2?
Penny also refuses to acknowledge the inherent complexities in expressing computations so that a computer can execute them.