Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site kestrel.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Titles Message-ID: <4590@kestrel.ARPA> Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 20:23:42 EST Article-I.D.: kestrel.4590 Posted: Wed Feb 5 20:23:42 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:42:21 EST References: <4514@kestrel.ARPA> <487@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 30 Keywords: Computer Science (creighton) > [...] I wasn't suggesting that a CS degree isn't worth > much to programmers -- I was asserting that even though you have a CS > degree you may not be worth much as a programmer. >[...] The problem is with the professionalism of the > code [...] >[commenting on some bsd4.1 utilities] you will see that they are not > professionally written [with examples of what this means] > [In industry] it really doesn't matter how > well you understand the concepts in computer science; if you can't > produce a maintainable product that is ready to ship by the deadline > then you are in trouble - unless [..the exception] Thankyou for moderating your comments. I agree with your point of view on code. At universities, code is usually written to satisfy a degree requirement, or to prove a point (so-called *rapid-prototyping*). BSD4.1 was explicitly caveat receptor, as Unix used to be. We shouldn't expect industrial-strength code in academic prototypes. (Again, there are notable exceptions to this). I notice you're still saying it doesn't matter how well people understand the concepts. I beg to differ. In my sphere of work, creative understanding really counts, whether in concepts or in programming. For example, we write specifications in set theory, and compile them (we hope!). Of course, deadlines must still be met. I still believe that people make better programmers if they can do all the problems in Knuth. Peter