Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Re: Role of computer science
Message-ID: <10529@cca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 00:59:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: cca.10529
Posted: Tue Oct 14 00:59:48 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Oct-86 23:11:21 EDT
References: <10410@cca.UUCP>
Reply-To: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge
Lines: 83

In article <> coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta) writes:
>> I hope not.  Perhaps you feel programming is a trade similar
>> to automobile repair and ought to be taught and regarded in the
>> same way.  Again, I hope not.
>
>I don't know why you hope not.  When I was busy being an undergrad we 
>had some people in from "industry" and they told us they didn't
>like to hire grads from the university because they were inclined to
>ask too many questions -- "Are you sure you want this feature?  Wouldn't
>the system be better if...?"  They said they wanted programmers who
>had a good grasp of a variety of languages, knew various standard
>techniques for accomplishing things (B-trees, ISAM...), and most of all
>WHO DID WHAT THEY WERE TOLD WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS.  Now these
>programmers that they wanted sound a lot to me like car mechanics --
>know the make, the model, fix it.  I sincerely hope that graduates
>from university never do what they are told without asking any
>questions -- I hope that they have become critical thinkers, and
>will approach everything they do by asking questions, and finding
>the best way of doing it.  I repeat, if I had wanted to go and
>get a job as a programmer I would not go to a university.  I came
>to the university because I wanted to find out how compilers
>worked, I wanted to know about the theoretical underpinnings of
>these machines that I was working on, I wanted to be curious --
>I did not want to know how to program in COBOL, I did not
>want to spend weeks adding help screens to my programs, I did
>not want to just sit back and do what I was told without
>being curious about whether there were other ways of do it.
>
>At the risk of severe flamage for excess rambling I'll go on a bit
>more.  I suspect your idea of a professional programmer does
>not coincide with mine, and perhaps this is because your perception
>of the work environment for professional programmers is different.
>My experience is that the demands of the typical employer are
>"do what I want, and do it quickly before we lose any more profits".
>As long as this is the attitude that a professional programmer
>is going to encounter in the "real world" then better for
>professional programmers to be car mechanics -- it will result in 
>a lot less aggravation for them.  And since we don't train 
>car mechanics at universities, lets not train their programmer
>counterparts their either.
>

	I sympathize.  Actually, there are two rather distinct
programming environments.  There is the world of business programming
(about 65%) and everything else.  And they are very different
environments.  A lot of COBOL shop programming is, from my viewpoint,
depressing, not to say horrid.  First of all it is traditionally
split between analysts and coders (who are often expected to
operate at the trade school level.)  Secondly the pressures are
high and the work very quickly becomes repetitive (this is report
writer 1001, tomorrow we want #1002 and #1003).

	However, I have the impression, perhaps unfairly taken, that
you understand or know very little about the "real world" of the
professional programmer.  My impression is that you have substantially
misunderstood what you were being told by "industry".  "Don't ask
questions" is your rendition, but I suspect it is a misunderstanding.
Let me phrase it as follows, "Your scope for innovation and change
of design and specifications is limited because changes of this type
are expensive and have an impact far beyond yourself; you will not
have the freedom of innovation that you had when you were creating
software for yourself.  If you do not understand and accept this,
then your value is limited."

	As a member of larger team you do not have the freedom of
action that you have as an individual, nor do you have the freedom
to set goals for the organization that you do for yourself.  You
have some freedom, but not as much.  On the other hand, you have
greater resources at hand and you are participating in a much larger
achievement.  Personally, my sympathies are with the freedom of
action, but that is another story.

	I find your final conclusion depressing because it tells
me that (a) you don't know very much about industry, (b you are
hostile to it on a basis of ignorance, and (c) you are probably
passing your misconceptions onto your students.  Perhaps I am doing
you a major injustice; please feel free to correct me [flames optional].
However that is the impression I am given.

-- 

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]
	For Cheryl :-)