[plt-scheme] Re: Programming for non-programmers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cleis [mailto:rcleis at mac.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:34 PM
> To: Alex Peake
> Cc: plt-scheme at web-ext.cs.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Re: Programming for non-programmers
> 
> 
> On Oct 16, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Alex Peake wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Richard Cleis [mailto:rcleis at mac.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:36 AM
> >> To: Alex Peake
> >> Cc: plt-scheme at web-ext.cs.brown.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Re: Programming for non-programmers
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 16, 2004, at 9:33 AM, Alex Peake wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Message: 2
> >>>> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:31:00 -0700
> >>>> From: Richard Cleis <rcleis at mac.com>
> >>>> To: "Neil W. Van Dyke" <neil at neilvandyke.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Re: Programming for non-programmers
> >>>> Cc: plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it the 'workers' that need educated or The Industry 
> that needs 
> >>>> educated?  The laments in this thread include errors (made by 
> >>>> 'workers', of course) involving memory allocation, among other 
> >>>> low-level issues.  In other words, after a four decade 
> >>>> computerevolution where operating systems have surpassed a 
> >>>> gigabyte, these environments are still so dumb that it 
> is possible 
> >>>> for 'workers'
> >>>> to make the same fundamental errors today as we did when I was a 
> >>>> kid.
> >>>>
> >>>> I feel cheated; I was told that programs would be writing 
> >>>> themselves by now! ;)
> >>>
> >>> It is WE the programmers ('workers') that need to write 
> the programs 
> >>> that write programs, surely?
> >>
> >> Indeed.  And bus drivers need to be trained to drive a busses.  If 
> >> busses have poorly designed brakes, the drivers (no matter how well
> >> trained) still crash more than necessary.  Does this mean that we 
> >> need to train them to upgrade brakes?
> >
> > This gets us into the "division of labor" discussion - probably not 
> > here!
> >
> >>
> >>  From my perspective, CS education is often wasted because 
> graduates 
> >> can't pursue better ideas when so much of their time is 
> wasted merely 
> >> surviving.  This is part of what I meant by 'The Industry Needing 
> >> Training.'  I am applying self criticism here, by the way; 
> I am part 
> >> of The Industry that needs training.
> >
> > By "graduates" do you mean the working graduate, or the garduate 
> > student? Let me assume the former.
> 
> Yes, the former.  More rudely stated as Products of 
> Universities Delivered to Industry. :)
> >
> > There are great companies, average companies, poor 
> companies (assume a 
> > somewhat Normal distribution). That means there are very 
> few "great". 
> > I also observe that the "average" is pretty (absolute terms) low 
> > perfoming. It is tough to do well in low perfoming companies. Just 
> > like companies, graduates follow a similar distribution 
> (companies are 
> > just aggregations of people).
> > Again the "average" is pretty low performing (IMHO). Even 
> then, held 
> > back by low performing companies, the great can still shine 
> bright and 
> > make big contributions. (My mantra of career management, BTW, is 
> > "choose the right boss - all else follows".)
> >
> > So what would you like to achieve? Raise the level of a particular, 
> > small subset that is important to you?
> 
> I am concerned with businesses in general.  If we *all* were 
> more concerned with what is important to each of us 
> personally, then so much the better (and so much more the 
> demand for CS).
> 
> >  This is quite doable.
> 
> And a few of us in our organization are beginning to try.
> 
> > Raise the level of the global average? Exceedingly challenging, and 
> > certainly a very long term goal.
> 
> This makes me wonder.  Do members of other professions see 
> shortcomings that are so challenging?  In other words, are 
> the many low performing companies to which you refer a result 
> of a computer revolution that is moving too fast?  Or is the 
> computer profession no different than any other?

I am sure all professions suffer to a similar degree, though certainly some more than others. 

The speed of the computer revolution has created a great demand, which in turn has attracted many
relatively unskilled. I have met many with shallow formal training and study, yet presenting some
form of resume/work experience. Elsewhere in the thread (Noel maybe?) it was noted that our
profession is somewhat more loosely held to standards. It was suggested elsewhere (Matthias?) that
assessing competence is not difficult, and yet I find many managers quite at a loss as to how to
assess programmers. This is how so many poor programmers get hired in the first place?

Others have pointed out that the top programmers are undervalued, and in any but great companies I
agree. Most think in terms of a linear relationship between Rank and Output (Value) with the 50%
Rank giving 50% Value. I think more in terms of ax + bx^3 where the bottom quartile have negative
value and the top quartile produce 3 to 10 times more value than the average. I have had many
managers intellectually agree, and then balk at actually paying even double.

The part of the answer I am working on is set the top quartile to work with generative techniques,
searching out and generating the well known patterns (and re-train the bottom quartile in some other
skill). I could chat for days about this, but I stop here.


Alex 

> 
> rac
> 
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >>
> >> rac
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Alex
> >>>
> >>
> >
>