Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!xanth!mcnc!rti!bbt!wgd
From: wgd@bbt.UUCP (dixon)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Structured Programming
Summary: I concur
Message-ID: <423@bbt.UUCP>
Date: 16 Feb 89 14:13:25 GMT
References: <1328@dsacg3.UUCP>
Reply-To: wgd@bbt.UUCP (dixon)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Broadband Technologies, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 39

In article <1328@dsacg3.UUCP> vfm6066@dsacg3.UUCP (John A. Ebersold) writes:
>
>Structured programming is currently being discussed in comp.unix.wizards.
>
>To summarize the various comments (with apologies to the original posters):
>
etc.

>Some people think a good design is more important than the language of
>implementation.  A good design is essential but the language is important
>also.
>
>Can a good programmer write a good program in a bad language? Yes.
>
>Can a bad programmer write a bad program in a good language? Yes.
>
>Can a bad programmer screw up a good design? Yes.
>
>Stated another way: A well placed kludge can be considered elegant.
>
>If not, what are your thoughts?
>

I agree wholeheartedly.  At the risk of sounding like *those* people
in comp.unix.wizards (intolerant and with a "hacker" mentality), how
can people in this day and age, with any amount of education, really
feel the way some of them have expressed.  My company would never
knowingly hire someone with those attitudes.  Yes, we feel that there's
no substitute for good design and structured techniques; after all, this
IS and engineering discipline (at least some of us are trying to take
that approach).  I only hope that the "hackers" that are afraid of
"leaping" into the future and using modern SW engineering techniques are
not an example of the calibre of people prevalent on the net (or in the
industry).

Walter Dixon
Broadband Technologies, Inc.
wgd@bbt.uucp
{...}mcnc!rti!bbt!wgd