Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site hoptoad.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!hoptoad!laura
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Titles
Message-ID: <495@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 17:51:58 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.495
Posted: Fri Feb  7 17:51:58 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 04:03:59 EST
References: <4514@kestrel.ARPA> <487@hoptoad.uucp> <4590@kestrel.ARPA>
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 40
Keywords: Computer Science

In article <4590@kestrel.ARPA> ladkin@kestrel.ARPA writes:
>(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.

Hmm.  If you thin that passing lint qualifies code as ``industrial-
strength'' then we have a huge conceptual gap to overcome.  (I don't
mean you personally -- this problem is widespread.  My greatest gripe
about the industry in general is that not enough time is spent building
and analysing prototypes -- it is rush, rush, rush -- ship it! all the
time.  And then tech support has to deal with bugs that should have
been discovered, and everybody has to live with crocks that should be
redesigned.  And the time to redesign is never found...)  Getting code
to pass lint takes a good C programmer almost no time, and great C
programmers write code that passes lint all the time.  I have always
found that this is the case because the great C programmers have a
better understanding of not only what they want to do, but also how to
do it.  But I digress -- except that I really wish that it was impossible
to get a csc degree without acquiring this knowledge of how to do whatever
they want to do.  Somehow or other this information does not get taught,
and I think that it is very important.

>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.

So do I.  The part where we differ is that I believe that it is possible
to do all the problems in Knuth by reading Knuth (and other reference
books) and so it is not *necessary* to go to university.  Indeed, I
*know* that there are a lot of people who have university degrees who
*can't* do most of the problems in Knuth.
-- 
Laura Creighton		
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura 
hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa