Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2185 comp.software-eng:1343 comp.lang.c++:2931 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!pdn!dinsdale!reggie From: reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: "Expertise" Message-ID: <5901@pdn.paradyne.com> Date: 5 Apr 89 11:35:44 GMT References: <354@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <7531@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <572@hsfmsh.UUCP> <15130@bellcore.bellcore.com> Sender: news@pdn.paradyne.com Reply-To: reggie@dinsdale.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) Distribution: usa Organization: AT&T Suncoast Division, Largo FL Lines: 66 In article <15130@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >But I also realize that large portions of people working in many fields >are not aware of the publishing/research in their field. The chagrin many >people express at this is because people in computing are often compared to >those engaged in scientific and engineering disciplines. Most of my experience >has been with people who are neither scientists nor engineers despite their >competence in computing technology. This can even apply to people who have advanced degrees in CS!!!! >In most cases it is knowledge of what is available in the marketplace rather >than from research which concerns most people who develop software. I may wish >that it were a bit different, but I am not surprised at what people do read >given the encouragement they receive for the kinds of information they bring to >bear in the workplace. One of the problems I see is the perception that research is not considered productive by many who are involved with product development. I often wonder where this attitude comes from. Perhaps it is a justification mechanism that people use to make themselves feel good about the work they do? I mean we all would love to have the freedom to explore whatever area we would like (BTL Murray Hill, Xerox PARC, etc....) Sure there are cases of pure research that don't appear to be too useful, but then again there are plenty of counter examples as well, eg. UNIX itself! I think people fail to see the utility of research. It is to test a hypothesis. If the research fails to produce a working system then perhaps it indicates a path that should not be taken or points to other areas that should be explored. We can learn from those experiences. Too many people are only interested in what they need to know in order to get their job done now. But by not being aware of what is happening outside of your own little world you liimit the possibilities of what you can do in the future. Technology is constantly changing. If you don't keep up, next year's college senior is going to know more than you do! >Thus, I find it hard to lay any blame on people for what they find valuable to >read. The encouragement (or lack of it) from their companies and the market- >place seems a key element in this process. If the industry itself does not >seem to take professional involvement seriously, it is hard to expect those >who work in industry to do so. I think that industry in general is reactive to technological change rather than actively participating, even if the participation is only at the level of observation. The time to learn about relational databases was not when the products were available in abundance. Even now there are many people who are just now learning what relational databases are all about! Remember the articles and cartoons in trade rags a few years ago that went something like this: Some manager saying he didn't know what a relationa database was, but he wanted one! Hypertext and Object Oriented Programming are almost in the same class of technology today! That is why there are so many people out there making money on weak courses and seminars for the unaware! George W. Leach AT&T Paradyne .!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 reggie@pdn.paradyne.com P.O. Box 2826 Phone: (813) 530-2376 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826