Xref: utzoo comp.arch:7653 comp.software-eng:976
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy!ames!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!rpi!rpics!adamsf
From: adamsf@rpics (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Professional Programmers (was: Seeing the future)
Message-ID: <38@rpi.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 88 23:58:41 GMT
References: <1984@eos.UUCP> <28200245@mcdurb> <321@taux02.UUCP> <32353@think.UUCP> <331@taux02.UUCP> <1992@ndsuvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@rpi.edu
Reply-To: adamsf@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Frank Adams)
Followup-To: comp.software-eng
Organization: RPI CS Dept.
Lines: 18

(I am directing follow-ups to comp.software-eng; this has nothing to do with
architecture any more.)

In article <1992@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncsmith@ndsuvax.UUCP (Timothy Smith) writes:
>    I have to disagree with your last sentence.  If you extend this to
>every area in which a programmer may be doing work, ... then the programmer
>has to know about every trick in that area ...  I think that the
>programmer should examine what the specialist wants done, find areas that
>look like canidates for optimization, and then ask the specialist ...

I disagree strongly.  A professional writing programs in any subject area
has a responsibility to be become, if not expert, at least reasonably well
informed about that subject.  This is what employers should be looking
for when hiring programmers, not familiarity with language X.  (Although
the latter can sometimes substitute for the former -- it is a safe bet
that someone who knows MUMPS will know something about medical practice.)

Frank Adams	adamsf@cs.rpi.edu