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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I don't personally believe in end user programming.
Because I've seen the really crummy stuff novices create with 4GL tools. Its generally unusable stuff.

What I am annoyed about is management classifying software development at about the same level of difficulty as typing. We are viewed as unskilled labor exportable overseas to cheaper parts of the world. Line workers.

This bothers me a lot.

I also think that programming as it is defined today is broken. The current crop of popular languages are lame platypi lacking synergy and focus. The world wide web and most of its hosted apps are an assemblage of chewing gum and toilet paper.

The gum and paper are of elaborate design with special properties devised by roving throngs of cocktail party politicians jockeying for favorable position in a competitive landscape - standards are always designed to screw someone.

I don't think programming is automatable, but I do think infrastructure could be put into place to elevate the conceptual level at which we operate if the big 800 lb gorillas would quit trying to crush each other. There is a group working towards a virtual machine that is truly general purpose - whether they can succeed and gain adoption remains to be seen.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:40:15 AM EDT
New human factors bust automation goals
Because I've seen the really crummy stuff novices create with 4GL tools. Its generally unusable stuff. What I am annoyed about is management classifying software development at about the same level of difficulty as typing. We are viewed as unskilled labor exportable overseas to cheaper parts of the world. Line workers.

Agreed. It is relatively *easy* to get something running from scratch using Access or what-not. However, amatures have almost ZILCH understanding/skills of long-term *maintainability*. However, kudos for maintainability skill are generally rare in comming. That is the big contradiction of the industry IMO. Bosses don't know what is good for them, jugding things on superficial sh8t instead.

Yes, newbies and end users *can* create applications with drag-n-drool tools, but eventually they will make a mess. It is like gunk build-up in arteries or bad oil in your car. It may not kill the machine today, but it will in the end. A lot of programming expenditure today is cleaning up, navigating, or patching messes made by idiots. I would go as far to say that messes made by idiots is *the* most expensive part of custom software.

So as long as there are idiots, there will be jobs for people to deal with or clean up the messes. However, such work is usually not very pleasent IMO. It is similar in feeling to spending time to untangle your toddler's yoyo.

Another factor keeping the profession alive is "ego-based tinkering". Managers love to customize stuff. It makes them feel important. Generic tools could be made to handle roughly say 90% of what they want, but its the last 10% that turns them to more skilled people.

Finally, many business rules are too complex and capricous to automate with drag-n-drool end-user tools. I liken it to building an AI system that tries to model the current head honcho's head. I think GUI's and add/change/delete forms could be greatly simplified, especially for web apps, but the nitty business rules behind a lot of that are not generic enough to package and share. IOW, many biz rules are not rational enough to apply rational abstraction to.

Thus, there are 3 factors that keep the profession alive:

1. Newbies/amatures tend to make messes that accumulate over time.

2. Fine-tuned customization makes managers feel important.

3. Biz rules are too tied to whims and flakiness of big-wig personalities rather than reflecting factorable true-isms about the universe.

What I see as a bigger threat to programming is cheap foreign labor (both abroad and visas). Even if it does not directly replace your job, it will toss a lot of developers into the job pool, bumping other citizens your way and diluting citizen earning power and market demand.
________________
oop.ismad.com
New Re: human factors bust automation goals
However, amatures have almost ZILCH understanding/skills of long-term *maintainability*. However, kudos for maintainability skill are generally rare in comming. That is the big contradiction of the industry IMO. Bosses don't know what is good for them, jugding things on superficial sh8t instead.

Actually, notice of this type of things usually comes from your peers rather than the PHB's. There's nothing quite like being told by someone (assigned to make a change to a program you originally wrote) that it was easy to make the modification to it.

(The one I'm thinking of, about the third or fourth program I wrote after I joined the programming work force, is IMO a pile of gently steaming crud, but it was nice to hear that someone thought it was halfway decent code even if I disagree with them on that. :-)
New re: Peer Kudos
Actually, notice of this type of things usually comes from your peers rather than the PHB's. There's nothing quite like being told by [another developer] that it was easy to make the modification to it.

True, but that often does not translate into more pay. I am not saying that personal satisfaction is not a good reward in itself, but on a large scale there is not a lot of financial incentive for programmers in general to write maintainable code in most shops I see.

(Hmmm. I don't remember that many "however's" in my text. It was fine when I proofread it. Aliens changed it! My foil hat is not working.)
________________
oop.ismad.com
     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)

Ho ho, then you ain't gettin' no Coke!
107 ms