IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Well ...
Actually, I have to somewhat disagree with this:


It's a quirk of this young industry that people (mainly HR and PHBs) think there's a difference between a "programmer" and a "web programmer". If we decided tomorrow to redo our intra/extranet as an installable program that happens to use the internet for communication, I'd still be one of the ones doing it.


If we were to assume that that programmer had some formal education in programming (computer science, math, EE, etc.), then you might be closer to the truth. My experience has shown that many programmers (and non-programmers, especially) coming from the client/server world stumble quite a bit with the web.

That doesn't mean that web programming is inherently (sp?) than client/server or any other distributed (or non-distributed) model. What it means is that there are plenty of gotchas, and a paradigm of looking at how things work. When I see a client/server programmer (that usually isn't that experienced with programming) start coding for the web, they make all sorts of mistakes (such as over-using session objects, organizing pages incorrectly, organizing forms improperly, etc.). The same would go for doing the reverse. If you took a web programmer and threw him/her at a CORBA project, many mistakes will be made. And that's assuming some training. Given *enough* training, and that may not be a problem...but, then, if you've got special training, you're more than a general purpose programmer (or a web-specific or RPC-specific programmer).

With better and better tools, though, those mistakes lessen (and possibly go away). That type of development becomes commoditized (meaning that new college graduates can do it for a lot less money). Web development is certainly headed that way. Of course, there will always be the "more difficult" types of things to do, which will require a more experienced individual, but as the maturation of the "subindustry" grows, the need for those types of individuals lessens.

I can read the writing on the wall for what I do...and, hence, I'm working to move beyond it. I've already become too expensive as a simple programmer. For most things, somewhat that's a lot cheaper can do it just as well (or, at least, good enough and fast enough). I'm not going to compete on speed (there's no way to really use that in an interview, and I don't want to work that way), and if my specialized knowledge isn't needed, I'm not (and I don't believe in hording it, so it's easier to work myself out of a job).

Dan
New I think we've leapfrogged the technology
If we were to assume that that programmer had some formal education in programming (computer science, math, EE, etc.), then you might be closer to the truth ... With better and better tools, though, those mistakes lessen (and possibly go away). That type of development becomes commoditized (meaning that new college graduates can do it for a lot less money).

I agree with the problem, but think the cause is that our expectations have outpaced the technology. Because of the immaturity of the tools, a good programmer still must have some theoretical background beyond their specific toolset. Eventually the tools will be mature enough to allow specialization, by automating the "generic programming" aspect. But until the tools reach that point, a good programmer will still probably have to know more about programming than about a specific problem domain.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
New Agreed
New And this differs from any other pair of technologies..how?
Take any technology. I maintain that programmers who are only familiar with that will make characteristic mistakes when asked to perform with any other technology. How many, how big, and what they are depends on the pair of technologies. That there will be some is inevitable.

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
New Riding the waves
I completely agree. My point wasn't to make web development and other distributed development models special (I was merely following the example given).

What that means, though, is that for a particular type of technology (whether that's web development, client/server, enterprise integration, etc.) it takes time for the tools to reach a point where inexperienced to non-programmers are able to produce applications quickly and with somewhat acceptable quality (obviously, this is somewhat debatable, hence the *acceptable* quality).

Until tools reach that parity, experienced developers with the technology will be in high demand (assuming the technology is in high demand). From a developer's perspective (a highly skilled one, that is), sticking with a particular technology until it's been "tooled" out isn't necessarily a good idea. Of course, there are some examples for and against this: COBOL, which everyone claimed was dead, is still fairly big (even after the spike in 1998-9); though C (not C++) development has tapered off over the years (being replaced mostly by C++/C#/Java), though still has a fairly large niche (Linux, Unix, drivers, etc.); VB and Delphi relegated PowerBuilder (and to some extent Visual C++) to niche-sized markets; and, of course, even Office, with VBA, macros, Access, etc., has made programmers out of power users. None of this is new, of course.

I guess my point is that, for the past 20 years or so, there have been waves of technologies which have required experienced developers, admins, etc. to scratch a business itch. Those that have ridden those waves have done well (financially), but when they've ridden them too long or too much, it makes it harder to jump onto the next wave (and demand for them has gone down).

Dan
     Hm... sharpen yer virtual pencils - (tseliot) - (49)
         Gave my opinion a while back - (drewk) - (41)
             Shoot. Missed that whole conversation. - (tseliot) - (11)
                 My goal is to automate as much as possible then pass - (boxley) - (2)
                     Do you feel... - (tseliot) - (1)
                         2 of course - (boxley)
                 Don't know how to answer that - (drewk) - (7)
                     I was interested in the web part. -NT - (tseliot) - (6)
                         Well ... - (drewk) - (5)
                             Re: Well ... - (dshellman) - (4)
                                 I think we've leapfrogged the technology - (drewk) - (1)
                                     Agreed -NT - (dshellman)
                                 And this differs from any other pair of technologies..how? - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                     Riding the waves - (dshellman)
             That would seem to indicate that... - (CRConrad) - (5)
                 What I mean - (drewk) - (4)
                     PHP database code? - (tablizer) - (3)
                         What I mean by "manually" - (drewk) - (2)
                             inter-paradigm translation costs - (tablizer) - (1)
                                 Yes -NT - (drewk)
             Another take - (wharris2) - (22)
                 That's a growing problem at technical schools - (tjsinclair) - (21)
                     Reminds me of first computer related course that I took... - (a6l6e6x)
                     Real Story - (jake123) - (19)
                         Don't I wish - (drewk) - (1)
                             Re: Don't I wish - (jake123)
                         Web Programming and OO? - (Simon_Jester) - (16)
                             Couple of answers - (drewk)
                             Javascript is like Python wrt OO - (admin) - (2)
                                 re: Javascript is like Python wrt OO - (tablizer) - (1)
                                     That wasn't my point. -NT - (admin)
                             Functional programming languages - (ChrisR)
                             Why OO techniques in web programming - (jake123) - (10)
                                 why does that need OO? - (tablizer) - (9)
                                     It doesn't. It just makes it a lot easier. - (jake123) - (8)
                                         Of course I don't believe you - (tablizer) - (7)
                                             Whatever you say, sunshine. -NT - (jake123) - (6)
                                                 I was hoping for a technical comparison, not flame-bait -NT - (tablizer) - (5)
                                                     Re: I was hoping for a technical comparison, not flame-bait - (jake123) - (4)
                                                         Start a new thread if you two get into it :-) - (admin) - (1)
                                                             Should we put it in the Flame Quarentine section? -NT - (tablizer)
                                                         just recursion there - (tablizer) - (1)
                                                             Recursion not the point; it's object references (new thread) - (jake123)
         Low-level programming - (Arkadiy) - (2)
             I don't quite agree. - (static) - (1)
                 I was trying to say the same thing. -NT - (Arkadiy)
         I don't personally believe in end user programming. - (tuberculosis) - (3)
             human factors bust automation goals - (tablizer) - (2)
                 Re: human factors bust automation goals - (wharris2) - (1)
                     re: Peer Kudos - (tablizer)

We're talking "filled with angry bees" levels of agony.
407 ms