What profession invents their reality?

Post #333,214 by crazy 9/27/10 11:30:33 AM 9/27/10 11:30:52 AM Reply	What profession invents their reality? Other then programmers? I mean gets paid to think, envisions something that does not exist, then spends some solo working time, and then turns a final product over to the customer that "behaves" a certain way, just for the customer. The behavior is a reflection of the desired goals, the system constraints, and the programmer's mind. If you've ever worked with a programmer that seems easily confused, try to imagine just how bad their code is (reflecting their thought process). And multiply it out a few hundred time, because no one can envision just how badly someone else can code something. There is always a new level of stupidity that unveils itself as you walk through the misused language, the lack of fundamentals, and then get to wallow in the poorly reinvented algorithms. Code has a lifetime. Programs can be autonomous. They evolve based on external input and additional code (on purpose or library updates). They are kind of like a living things, and certainly behave unexpectedly sometime. Who creates things that possibly misbehave as part of their job, the misbehaviors can cost thousands (or millions) of dollars, and these things can behave wildly differently depending on unseen factors, and no one else gave any thought or reviewed the process since the initial output matched the spec. So, what other profession allows this type of freedom to invent? Done well or poorly. In most cases, nothing physical is modified, most servers, networks, etc, are already there, and the person didn't depend on any other person to produce anything as part of the process. Yes, we stand on the shoulders of giants, but those giants have no say in how we use their languages or databases. If some new hardware is involved, it is in support of the programmer's design, not the other way around. At least if it is a good design. And I don't means directors, or anyone who has to interface with anyone else to see their vision realized. Obviously this describes solo programming. Teams don't count. And it means the programmer also has to be a designer. Which most aren't. So, what other profession? Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 11:30:52 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,216 by boxley 9/27/10 11:32:47 AM Reply	artist, religious figure, politician Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,217 by crazy 9/27/10 11:50:27 AM 9/27/10 1:48:53 PM Reply	I thought about artist In most cases, art is static. And there is no $ risk of the art mis-performing, unless it is a giant structure, and then it is based on falling over and killing people, or an opening didn't draw enough people. Those are not internal hidden failures. They don't fall into the level of constrained details that are required to program. No art viewer cares if the pigments are arguing with each other and 5 years from now the painting will crumble. I could ramble on, but I simply don't accept any type of art as having the business functionality that allows for the type of hidden damage programmers create. And it doesn't even create it's own reality, it creates an impression on the person experiencing it. When that person walks away, the art effectively doesn't exist in their world other than the thoughts left behind. But a program is acting independently of user, they merely intersect occasionally. Both religious figures and politicians depend on convincing others of their realities before they can exist. And no matter how well they convince, they just changed other people's behavior, for a while. If they convinced them to do something because the angels said so, they lied. Programmers create the angels. Programmers directly alter the behavior of independent agents, and can control (not that they always do, but CAN control) every single thing the programs does. And the program will continue to affect real world events, at least as long as the admins keep the systems running. As per the programmer's spec. Hmm. Ok, so while the freedom gives the initial ability to create these worlds, as long as there is hardware involved the admins are necessary. You can be one of my angels, box. Don't forget, angels are interchangeable. Eventually. Back to religious figures and politicians: With the exception of dictator, and I mean way past Saddam level, they can't control individual actions, they can merely guide. And people are stupid. They can be convinced of almost anything, using many levels of language, which is used in a way to confuse them, not clarify. Whatever comes out of the process is subject to debate. Computers are the opposite. You have to exactly specify what it does. Programmers (of the level I'm describing) create multiple realities, on their own, until the reality they create matches the desired goals of the customer. Nothing like religious figures and politicians. Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 12:13:54 PM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 12:15:19 PM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 01:48:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,220 by drook 9/27/10 11:58:17 AM Reply	Economists -- Drew
Post #333,225 by beepster 9/27/10 12:05:09 PM Reply	If I got to invent my reality I'd have tons more money :-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,227 by crazy 9/27/10 12:07:15 PM Reply	So basically the answer is no one?
Post #333,576 by scoenye 10/2/10 10:54:22 AM Reply	Judges They can create any virtual reality they like and you get to live in it.
Post #333,583 by crazy 10/2/10 11:57:56 AM Reply	Judges win on straight power No question. But they have intense review of their processes. They have to pretend to follow the law, but let's face it, we've seen some tortured logic to allow their viewpoint to drive a judgment. The intense review can take a very long time, though, and the power to enforce bad decisions is immense. So they do create reality. So as long as they cover their bases to not be impeached, and are elected for life, yeah, those few win 100%. They are not creating a product that satisfies a client, though, so no, they aren't what I had in mind, (at least as a reasonable comparison to what I do), so I won't be using them as an example. I don't pretend that level of power.
Post #333,219 by beepster 9/27/10 11:54:55 AM Reply	engineers Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,226 by crazy 9/27/10 12:06:54 PM Reply	Somewhat They are licensed, have specific educational requirements, and are subject to legal issues when their designs fail. In almost all cases, their work is reviewed by at least 1 other person, if not dozens. They rarely are the guys actually putting the stuff together (they do prototypes), and their might be production facilities and other aspects of their job, dealing with many people who can call them on their work when it doesn't look right. And in their case, they have exact mathematical formulas to guide what they build, and catalogs of off the shelf parts (like program libraries, but the specs on those parts are far better than the specs on a 3rd party library), and someone else can say if their design won't hold up based on weight or other factors. Nope. Yes, conceptually they start out near, but they veer off. I can assume that a licensed experienced engineer can take on a particular type of project, and if he screws it up, it's going to cost him a lot. He does not have the freedom to invent the way a programmer does, he has real world constraints. Programmers can have whatever they can envision, and if envisioned right, the only constraint is the cost of the next server when scaling, which is trivial and pays for itself when needed. I didn't say greatly affects their reality. I said invents.
Post #333,229 by malraux 9/27/10 12:15:28 PM Reply	Programmers have real world constraints Processor budgets, memory budgets, etc. Try building a huge dynamic Javascript front-end without controlling the client machine and you'll see what I mean. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #333,230 by crazy 9/27/10 12:32:02 PM 9/27/10 12:36:51 PM Reply	Sometimes As I pointed out above, not all programs or programmers have the freedom I am describing, but some do, some of the time. And a few have it almost all the time. If I walk into a job and they ask me to write a program that performs a task, if the compute power isn't available then it will have to be paid for, in support of my decision process. That will go through some type of review, but what other individual can say that my particular design is wrong, won't work, and be able to prove it beforehand? Good luck on that. They brought be in specifically because I know how to do that type of stuff, and they don't. And once I have my baseline environment, I'm in charge of all aspects. The subset of systems I work on don't include any browser specific code, and we have as little front end java script as possible. In my world, if a new server is required, it is in support of a specific revenue stream, so the cost is not a constraint. We love to buy more equipment to make more money. Your real world constraints are not my real world constraints, and constraints vary project by project. Not do all programmers have the freedom I'm describing. Some do, occasionally. So the question is: Does anyone else? And if not, is there any other that is even close, at least for analogy purposes? Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 12:35:40 PM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 12:36:51 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,234 by crazy 9/27/10 1:04:37 PM Reply	BTW, I've been doing some gardening No, not that type. I've got a bunch of herbs, etc, plus a hibiscus bush and bamboo tree in my living room under some great lights and environmental controls. I take great joy in doing things to accelerate growth, especially when cloning. I've got more own home built aeroponic grow chambers, plus I play in the dirt. I optimize carbon dioxide cycles and fan air air paths the same way I'd optimize a loop calling subroutines. I delve into light frequency (different depending on what chemicals / process is used in the light, lots to choose from) growth response rates (different for different plants, at different times in their growth cycle), nutrition/hormone balance, and varying lights and additives for different goals. It is as deeply technical as any combination of hardware/software/OS that I've ever worked in. A failure means a single plant dies. Pretty no downside since I'll end up with multiple clones of them all, soon enough. It takes days to see results of an action, and there are so many hidden variables I can't hope to ever understand it. But it smells good and is pretty, and I play a simple assistant to the biological process, and I like it.
Post #333,239 by jay 9/27/10 2:21:51 PM Reply	All creative work does to some degree All creative work involves conceiving of something and then seeing it implemented to some degree or another. Programming unique nature comes from the way that a single programmer often comes up with the concept, turns the concept into a practical design, and then implements that design all on their own. Probably the closest is the architect/engineer/construction side, if you where looking at a small project with one person doing all the work. Even their though the model isn't exactly the same. Many large programming projects would be rather like building a sky scrapper by getting 100 different engineers to design and build different apartments and then stacking them on top of each other, with plumbing and electrical strung in after wards. Some art also comes close. I'm thinking here of commissioned functional art, where the art still has to fit within certain constrained imposed by the buyer and by the physical constraints of it's eventual use. What I think you may be getting at here is that programmers get to design their own environment, abstractions and elements much more then other endeavors that are not pure art. An architect doesn't have dozens of fundamentally different systems for carrying electricity about the building to select among. And if he decided that existing systems are not right for what he is building, creating and installing a new one would be a major undertaking. Programmers do this sort of thing all the time. People have considered this line of thought before. Many have come to the conclusion it is actually one of the problems with programming. Many large programming projects are done rather like building a sky scrapper by getting 100 different engineers to design and build apartments and stacking them on top of each other. Plumbing and wiring is just custom fitted in where ever it will fit, and then everything covered in a healthy layer of plaster and paint. Jay
Post #333,242 by crazy 9/27/10 4:37:48 PM Reply	You pretty much covered it Except the attempt to bring large project under control with multiple layers of some type of project and or personnel management. That why I simply excluded team programming, it doesn't fit. I agree partially on the art side. Yes, it may need to be specified in the physical detail to extreme levels (I'm thinking highly controlled water fountains). But what is the downside of getting a subtle difference from spec? If the water is a bit purple rather than blue because the lasers were slightly off, does a bank transaction fail somewhere? So the level of responsibility is simply not there. Programming isn't art in the end result of what it produces, it may be internally artful, but that doesn't mean artists are doing what I described, just that programmers might be doing some of what artists do, occasionally. On the architect/engineer/construction side, no. You sit with one of those guys, you start dreaming, and they'll tell you your request went from $50,000 to $200,000 and take 4 months to build. If you go to someone else for the same, most likely your prices and skillsets will be equivalent. These guys assemble. They do it creatively, sometimes, but they are assembling stuff that they've spent years training for. Programmers have to pick up a new language or environment in a few weeks (days in an emergency). How long would it take an architect trained in modern construction techniques to put a bathroom in your house? And then long for the same guy to put it in an office building, but he has no commercial experience. Doesn't happen. Different training. And then how long for the same guy to go to a historical village, and put a bathroom on a 200 year old church. Never. Again. Different training. How many languages (or equivalent variations of environment) are you expected to be productive in when you are a new hire, ie: how long to train up, if they know you have no experience in this before an need a training (or review) period? And they have high expectations of you? Different. Way different. If someone shows up and says they can do it for $10,000 in 2 weeks, you KNOW they are full of shit. You do that when programming, and your in house guy gives you the $200,000 estimate, and the new guy who has lots of experience says, nah, I can do it for $5,000, just give me the weekend to create a proof of concept to be sure. You believe it is possible. Or at least you should, and you'd give them a chance to show you. If that type of wild variation is possible (and reasonable), what is the client thinking? It's all f'ing magic, and they can have everything they want, for a minimal price, as long as they find the right guy.
Post #333,258 by jay 9/27/10 9:55:13 PM Reply	Re: You pretty much covered it On the architect/engineer/construction side, no. You sit with one of those guys, you start dreaming, and they'll tell you your request went from $50,000 to $200,000 and take 4 months to build. If you go to someone else for the same, most likely your prices and skillsets will be equivalent. That is because the business is more mature and more constrained by physical reality and law, and there are more distinct specialties. If there where legal mandates or physical constraints for how more programming had to be done down to the level of languages and hardware, bids across businesses would be far more consistent. And programming is getting divided into more narrow specialties, such as database admin, as it gets bigger and older. These guys assemble. They do it creatively, sometimes, but they are assembling stuff that they've spent years training for. Programmers have to pick up a new language or environment in a few weeks (days in an emergency). How long would it take an architect trained in modern construction techniques to put a bathroom in your house? Longer then a trained installation guy, but if he is any good he can do it faster then I could. That is true of programming also. It is more flexible then construction, but it isn't unlimited, and many programmer can't handle the level of flexibility they have. They can't shift gears that fast, and they do most of their programming by repeating patterns they have worked out, not as a handy way to build things but because that is all they know, they are lost when their patterns don't work. You do that when programming, and your in house guy gives you the $200,000 estimate, and the new guy who has lots of experience says, nah, I can do it for $5,000, just give me the weekend to create a proof of concept to be sure. You believe it is possible. Or at least you should, and you'd give them a chance to show you. The experienced managers know better. They know that the hot shot might be able to slap something together that works for $5000, but it will be a random maze of wiring and plumbing with a layer of plaster over it. They might get it cheap up front, but when things need changed or repaired down the road they will pay. The cynical managers go ahead anyway. Because they know they can take credit for getting it done for $5K and then take credit again when they fix it down the road. It will still vary more, simply because programmers vary more in how good they are, a good construction worker might be 3 or 4 times as fast as a bad one, but a good programmer can be 10, 20 even 100 times as productive as a bad one. No two businesses are exactly the same, their are unique elements to each. Jay
Post #333,339 by crazy 9/29/10 5:29:20 AM Reply	Specialty divison doesn't work the same in programming And I pointed out that it the power and freedom is dangerous, and it is just like Spiderman. With great power comes create responsibility. On the other hand, no, on the complex involved projects. Any possibility of team programming removed the absolute freedom (a pointed out), and the level of capability VS project type can allow for occasionally perfect black box projects, at least for me. So the question is not how is is constructed internally, the question is how long can the system run, being driven by external table for how long, without me or someone of my skillset level ever touching it. And those projects historically cost in the ranges I described, along with those cost differentials. My screed isn't about crappy programmers doing damage (which happens, bad programmers will always be there, it is just a matter of dealing with them and working around them). It's trying to come up with an analogy of what I do if I'm questioned by an exec, and why is it different from what they had before. And do it without telling him I'm a f'ing genius.
Post #333,401 by Ashton 9/30/10 1:29:26 AM Reply	Non-programmer responds. ('How' a reader of your query uses her own mind -- especially in any personal experience of creating the 'New' to some purpose -- will color all proposed answers, no?) Some examples as come to mind, hardly exhaustive: Psychiatrists.. there is truthiness in the koan re neurotics/psychotics who build imaginary castles/dreams and the psych-people collect the rent. In order to collect, they need to ~comprehend the structure in the subject's mind, in order to remodel towards a more practical daily existence for the client. (We can eschew the examinations of how effective are any of the Systems -- to this end.) Walter Mitty.. and the quote which RFK likely lifted (maybe from Æschylus, too?) about making happen "things that never were". Anyone not-on-autopilot throughout life will inhabit this space at times.. and may very well connect such ruminations with her (livelihood) -- thus the practical role mentioned. Linus Pauling, ill and abed -- virtually confirming the double-helix via a folded paper template with suitable "==" bonds-symbols he imagined to hook up. (That he was later prevented from traveling to UK by the odious H.U.A.C. to report on his findings at a conference -- thus allowing Watson/Crick to claim the Grail Â is another story.) That was a New world, too, though not the metaphorical one of the programmer. I recall, after grokking to medium-Fullness a melange of recently studied Boolean algebra tomes, seeing what a 'stack' + registers plus an arithmetic unit might be able to 'do' -- all re. the freshly unwrapped PDP-8 -- having an idea of what that mind-space might next be able to accomplish. This was even more fun when.. the hot new toy was, one day - a rilly-fast paper-tape reader, (found by a cohort from school-daze) also at lab, ordered and interfaced. So, I believe that the 'programmer experience' is more common than your query supposes. Just look at the layers of abstractions, starting from a search for 'human interface' quite beyond either flipping switches for a bootstrap paper-tape loader / or even the abstraction of ASR-33 mondo-typing. (I'd bet that some non-tech folks dropped hints long before several ideas gelled, and assembly-language routines with vectors began to be cobbled-up.) How does one parse the creativity march --> First [working] Mouse? ie. The mind is a ceaseless generator of metaphor -- tailored to whatever consciously-directed problem it is directed to solve. Programmers may not, thus claim some Special RelationshipÂ to the engine(s) of 'Creativity'. IMhO. (Managing 'creativity' --- now There's an oxymoron; never-mind that some folks wear such hats) I believe that such folks [J.R. Oppenheimer being perhaps the Patron Saint of "herding cats" throughout the Manhattan Project] manage to 'manage' virtually via empathy with the local set of minds (individually), respect for the originality evidenced -- via the application of great tact -- thus, they 'direct' in the form of 'interesting suggestions'. Anywhere such a one begins to homogenize, treat all as an interchangeable 'set': is where the 'direction' will fail. Just my experience in observing or participating in 'projects'. By the ModComp days, some of those projects indeed involved 'what programmers do' VS "how, inexactly? a massively complex accelerator is made to work Best." Lots of transliteration was involved in the above -- utterly inescapable where homo-sap is the End-user. (Much simpler if a missile aiming for Moscow is the End-user.) In a word, every 'theoretician' employs skills comparable to programming -- it's a General human facility which has no associated job-classification (I can see.) My 3 kop3ks
Post #333,513 by crazy 10/1/10 6:43:16 AM Reply	You've read far more into that than I was thinking which in turn makes me think more. I'm not making a claim on any unique creativity. I'm making it concerning the freedom to create and implement with as little constraints as possible, ie: does it fulfill the end result goals, and how many (if any) other people can review and comment on your work before it is accepted for some type of production that alters the world around it on an ongoing basis. These type of programs (systems) are extensions of the mind of the individual who wrote them, with very little external influence. As Admin Scott pointed out, there are some real world constraints such as memory or cpu speed, but those are easily overcome for a project profitable enough. You are describing some incredible people and/or situations, but those are the giants who's shoulders we stand on. I don't claim to stand within that group.
Post #333,560 by Ashton 10/2/10 4:49:46 AM Reply	Fair enough.. even agree: For the ephemeral nature of a 'mental world', nobody can impose 'constraints' upon artifacts a one creates; only can they criticize the performance (towards stated ends) of the result -- in the world of pecuniary considerations. As an Art (however disciplined by most of the koans of Science in such matters as 'speed of operation', accuracy and other matters amenable to measurement aka mensuration) -- there is no Sole Right Way, as there are always n-ways via which some solution to a schema might be managed. (How cute that this central-Fact protects from the dogmatic influence of the religionists, as sometimes impose egoistic Will-fulness upon so many other paid activities.) And yet.. the PHB shall always be with us, it seems; well.. so long as the environment is of the current bizarre-form, vulture-capitalism, that is. As a programmer does not consume tangible materials, she is free to create Any structure out of Any internal map which, in the end -- adequately accomplishes the general specs. Freed thus of engineering costs and materials fabrication ... why Yes, very few can claim possession of as much near-complete-autonomy as the non-regimented Programmer: at least, after having established her chops, thence ascending (along with the quality of a succession of results): towards --> Gigundo Omnipotent Designer (eh?) (Still.. one Marc Newsom -- a kind of general Designer of many kinds of objects, interviewed on Charlie Rose on 10/1 -- appears to possess also that degree of laissez-faire) ... based also on previous successes, sufficient to demand similar autonomy (although he acknowledges certain constraints), as where a certain company's 'style', for want of a more precise description, is to be incorporated along with The New. In that regard, it still looks as if the Mondo Programmer remains at the top of the heap re. 'freedom' !! -- in a world perpetually obsessed with much-Much-MORE than "The Adequate" -- well, for as long as That world lasts. 2 kopeks more.
Post #333,584 by crazy 10/2/10 12:06:22 PM Reply	100% This is why I post this type of stuff. To see this type of prose that lays the issue out in a way I couldn't. As a programmer does not consume tangible materials, she is free to create Any structure out of Any internal map which, in the end -- adequately accomplishes the general specs. Freed thus of engineering costs and materials fabrication ... why Yes, very few can claim possession of as much near-complete-autonomy as the non-regimented Programmer: at least, after having established her chops,... (final bit cut) Thanks
Post #333,403 by mhuber 9/30/10 4:41:20 AM Reply	How I became a tech writer I was on a 2 person team. I was the 2nd programmer. My lead programmer was a cowboy (yeah, he wore the hat and boots) imploding into coke addiction while C++ was being invented and we were emulating it using C. Man, did he write those three-line templates and prototypes for me to fill in. We were 2 weeks from beta for 18 months and then they fired him. Gave me his job and then hired him back. My brain broke. I never coded professionally again. But they did give me the privilege of driving him to the loony bin. Yep, I literally provided him transportation to the impatient mental health facility. I never saw his sorry ass again. Man, that was SWEET! --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #333,514 by Silverlock 10/1/10 6:43:53 AM Reply	I know you didn't mean it but I got a snicker out of this... Yep, I literally provided him transportation to the impatient mental health facility. Pedant humor. Go figure. I think the single most compelling piece of evidence for global warming is that Fox News viewers think it's a hoax.
Post #333,553 by mhuber 10/2/10 12:00:18 AM Reply	Not sure I follow I totally did mean it. I do know what "literal" means - I provided the dude with transportation from the ICOM corporate offices to the Milwaukee Mental Health Complex, using my blue Pontiac Grand Am. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #333,554 by Another Scott 10/2/10 12:05:13 AM Reply	Check the word before "mental health facility". :-D
Post #333,556 by mhuber 10/2/10 12:22:54 AM Reply	DOH! I guess I spoke too soon... --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #333,516 by crazy 10/1/10 6:51:34 AM 10/1/10 7:06:23 AM Reply	Yeah, it's a balance As I pointed out, the wrong individual is capable of immense damage. To himself and others. But, hey, you found out you weren't meant to be a programmer. Really. If I saw that guy, I'd consider a great experience. Of course, I ignored C++ (having been a decent C programmer) for 10 years, and then was able avoid it almost completely. I f'in HATE C++. I don't totally think it's that guy's fault, blame Bjorn for this one. Well, and MS-DOS. Really. C and C++ were developed under Unix (C has a chicken vs egg there, but I'll ignore that). Unix had memory protection. Bad pointers are common. VERY common. At least for novice C programmers, and it takes a couple of years of C programming before you correctly think in the language and don't screw up the pointer usage by default. But that only happens if EVERY time you have a bad pointer, the 1st time it hits, your program crashes and leaves a core dump. You pull it in the debugger, do a stack trace, and you see very quickly the amount of damage you have just done. And it makes you more careful while coding. This didn't happen to a generation in DOS and early Windows programmers. Bad pointers would merely scribble all over memory, sometime crashing the box, sometimes not, with almost no predictability. A fatal bug could trigger once every thousand runs, with no way to tell when. It was simply accepted that these boxes crash, even when running a simple single program, and might crash in a way that writes all over your hard disk. Most programmers simply did not know about them, and they continued to code, blaming other stuff for any problems. So after a couple of years of Unix C programming, there is a chance to develop some deep appreciation of the amount of things that can/might/will go wrong. Since the OS killed your program most times it experienced a bad pointer, and forced you to deal with it immediately. DOS (and then Windows programmers) blamed the OS, the hardware, the (anything but their code), so years later, these groups of programmers are VERY different from each other. Ok, rant/ramble over. Edited by crazy Oct. 1, 2010, 07:06:23 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,562 by Ashton 10/2/10 5:41:12 AM Reply	That may be the most lucid explanation yet seen re. Why Windows VS 'Other' programmers are, at least when faced-off: unable to communicate, almost to the exten of most-any 'political' non-dialogue (since GWB blew up the Empire.) If you really meant: Most programmers simply did not know about them, and they continued to code, blaming other stuff for any problems. Then words fail ... especially in the light of the US Navy (only once, was it?) actually letting NT 'run' one of its minesweepers IIRC. I mean.. I mean.. was it a Secret that these programmers --even by the date of that fiasco-- Did Not Know that most-all the random, destructive failures were about BAD POINTER (-coding) ?? Scary.. Imagine if your power-brakes were run on C++ eh? never mind the missiles.
Post #333,569 by boxley 10/2/10 8:44:58 AM Reply	mine sweepers, howsabout aircraft carriers? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,585 by crazy 10/2/10 12:16:54 PM Reply	oh, I meant it Early NT was great. It brought in memory protection to retrain the programmers. They fought like HELL. Their Win 3.x and 95 programs would not run, and they spent months before they could release them. Before that point, they'd patch a bug, and ship. Not anymore: they touched the code, recompiled, and crashed in thousands of places, again and again. They were FURIOUS. And so were their clients. It used to be you could get a bug fix from a responsive windows programmer in a couple of weeks (at least for our systems). We went to NT, and it took months. The full transition took years, and the entire time was spent trying to blame the chain of code owners, ie: local apps, 3rd part libraries, OS libraries, other apps running on the box, network drivers, video driver, etc. It settled down, it started to work, NT 3.51 was ROCK SOLID. Dave Cutler RULES! And then they went for video speed, allowed video drivers to crash the box, allowed any code to call the video drivers, and it started again. It never got better. Windows will never be fixed as long as they maintain their ring permission structure. And windows programmers will always have someone to blame.
Post #333,606 by Ashton 10/3/10 2:18:09 AM Reply	..Waiting for other shoe to drop And, it did: "Video drivers in Ring ZERO" as in cha. cha. cha. I guess that really does cover the core of the matter, then. (See, sometimes we non-programmers even, can grok-to-Fullness what it means to grant full (kernel) ACCESS to an unknown assortment of them 'entrepreneurs with an LLC') -- trying to make their insanely-great new video card hit Mach(o)-1!ONE!! ...and they get in a hurry ... to ship and.. and.. Now all that crap is fucking-Legacy, (I believe is the word for the trap that Redmond never can get out of) / all those aps playing-nice or sometimes not. SO then, IYO (too) -- they really Can't cut that umbilical and start over with a real OS ... ergo, Windows Shall Suck til Redmond dies by 1000 cuts / the death of all the cash-cows, as these end up in some Cloud-thing. (Sad for the World: that process is already taking Too Long.) Kinda thought it was (still) that way, but you'd expect --in a new century-- a place with that much purloined cash to have highly paid consultants as might Tell Them. Or maybe that's too dangerous for the consultant wanting a sinecure (?) Jeez I despise ethics-free bizness, especially when it's almost the only kind around, now. :-/
Post #333,609 by crazy 10/3/10 6:52:18 AM Reply	I saw corp presentations a couple of days ago The company I'm now working for seems to have been started by a couple of hippies. The corporate statement on integrity is really idealistic. I like it, but it's not realistic. If you lived by it, you'd live a life of dangerous exposure to the people who don't follow it. And I think the owners might, so they possibly really believe in it, I'd like to follow it to the letter, but it would be crazy. And I'm not THAT crazy. Sometimes you just have to keep your mouth shut until specifically asked for your input.

Welcome to IWETHEY!