Message #10 Posted by doug on 16 Nov 2001, 9:07 p.m.,
in response to message #9 by Paul Brogger
Well first things first. What you wrote wasn't a comment about what I had written but a direct and deliberate and judgmental attack on me as a person, and as a professional as to whether or not I know what I am talking about or if you prefer proper English what I was speaking about.
Could you show me in my writing where I did a "RANT". Well how is this for a professional rant?
Quote extract from Mr. Brogger "I think it’s a fine example of 20/20 hindsight to claim “mainframe programmers” had a clear sense of what the PC revolution meant, and that they were presciently warning everyone else of what was happening."
It is what you think and nothing more. You shouldn't be so quick to just put your thoughts in writing. It proves you didn't even understand what I wrote. Is this the statement I made you are alluding to?
Quote from doug "Now some of you are starting to understand why we mainframe programmers tried to warn everyone not to be so quick to destroy any individual types of environments."
Quote extract from Mr. Brogger "In fact, we (I’m a mainframe programmer still) generally didn’t realize the significance of what was happening – some of us seized opportunities and many of us didn’t."
I doubt you are now or have ever been a real mainframe programmer. I doubt you even know what that statement means. If you have written pseudo code on a mainframe computer system, and even used the editor on the mainframe and that is the basis of you calling yourself a mainframe programmer, YOU AREN'T! Of all the people that have ever claimed to be a mainframe programmer only about 2 to 3 percent are or ever was. A real mainframe programmer wouldn't dare write the dribble you have.
Quote extract from Mr. Brogger "Longing for the good old days of the 24-line x 80-character green screen and eight-bit character sets is not being realistic."
First of all that is a cheap shot, to make yourself appear and feel superior. Technically speaking and that is what a real programmer should be capable of and able to do, you simply don't know what you are talking about. What do you mean by putting "and eight-bit character sets" with the other part of the statement? Since you made such an impertinent statement and implied that is what I think, it is time for me to point out what you don't know. You brought the subject up, so, do you even know the difference in a DS and a CS? What book did you look the information on a green screen 24x80 up in or what class did you attend that they happened to mention it in? Didn't they mention 27x132, 3279, or even EDS. What color were the DEC, Burroughs and any other vendors screens at that time? How many bits do you think it takes to define a character set?
Quote extract from Mr. Brogger "As much as for any other reason, OOP has blossomed in order to help developers manage the intrinsic complexity of programming to the vastly more complicted GUI (windows, icons, menus, color bit-mapped graphics) environments. "
It was designed to allow people to learn to write pseudo-code. Not learn or ever become a real programmer. C, C++ is designed to used in place of real code, when a repetitive programming design can use it. But one thing none of these people seem to understand, is that all hardware processor design has basically stopped. They only design to accommodate badly designed code. They use to design a processor and system and you were allowed to design new and fresh code. C, C++, is perfect for embedded applications. Not business or real science. Support code to real science YES. Support code to real business, NO! Anyone that believes that any one software or hardware architecture is perfect for every environment is an IDIOT.
Quote extract from Mr. Brogger "The very scope of “the programming problem” has simply expanded by several orders of magnitude over the past 20 years (and that without regard to the vast proliferation of application domains in which computers may now be effectively put to use)."
What does this mean? What programming problem? The only ones I see use this type of terminology are offering excuses to why they can't resolve a problem instead of a programmed resolution. Just re-install it and it will work. The original reason for machines and programming was to allow the flexibility of programmed resolutions. A problem was defined and a programmed resolution was written. Not all the whimpering and whining that it is to hard to learn. BUNK. They are just lazy. People want to be called programmers that have never learned enough to be called programmers.
What application domains? INTEL, or pseudo INTEL such as AMD? Wow bunch of domains. Or is that an attempt to be smart. Mainframe domains?, or Functional domains?, or just what I believe you meant, different companies that are using the same INTEL architecture.
Quote extract from Mr. Brogger "If it were so easy to kick Microsoft’s butt, how come it doesn’t seem to be happening very often?"
Good question. How did they get such a hold on the government, schools, companies, and even the computer manufacturer. I tried to order a PC without any software and they told me I couldn't. After a lot of fights and arguments they said they would. I asked how much they would reduce the cost by not including the software and they said none. They said they still had to charge me the same price for the machine anyway. When I asked a company to sell me a computer without the applications they said they would have to charge me for them anyway. They said it isn't that much. Well a dollar is a dollar. If I don't want them and don't need them why do I or anyone else have to pay anything for them? They are not free. They pay a fee for every piece of software on every machine to the vendors.
Hand me millions of dollars for software that doesn't work more than a few hours at a time and tell me it is great and I am great and I can hire the 14 other people that will agree with me, and I will. My approach was going to be on a mainframe. Oh yeah, there will probably be around 15 million applicants. It would take more time to interview than actually design and write superior code. Programming is simple. Trying to use poorly designed compiled code, or operating system interfaces isn't. You ever heard the term "RACKET"?
I am willing to prove on this Open Forum what I stated at any time. Are you?