Questions for you glass-panel folks

If you want to write good efficient code it is most certainly needed. If
all you want to be is a script kiddie then I supposed understanding what
your doing is not really needed.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Rich Ahrens writes:

It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
degree.

Your comp sci department is not representative of the planet as a whole.
Universities in general live in an alternate universe when it comes to
practical technologies. Often the B.S. degree is aptly named.

But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

I guess if all you want to do is gather university credits, that might be
significant. If you want to write software, it's irrelevant.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Rich Ahrens writes:

It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
degree.

Your comp sci department is not representative of the planet as a whole.
Universities in general live in an alternate universe when it comes to
practical technologies. Often the B.S. degree is aptly named.

Says the bankrupt idiot sitting in a bare apartment except for items
given him by friends, unable to make enough money to buy the books and
videos on his wish-list, living off peanut butter and canned ravioli,
jerking off to flight sims. It's pretty clear who's living in an
alternate universe and full of BS.

But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

I guess if all you want to do is gather university credits, that might be
significant. If you want to write software, it's irrelevant.

Your tap-dancing is irrelevant. You said, "This has never been a
requirement for computer programmers." Many programmers (obviously not
all) come out of Comp Sci programs. In order to get accredited (at least
in the U.S., but I'd bet it's a pretty broadly implemented standard), a
Comp Sci program has to include a course like the one I described.
Therefore, it *has* been a requirement for at least some programmers and
you're full of **** as usual. QED.

For instance, the ABET curriculum standard requires:

"IV-6. The core materials must provide basic coverage of algorithms,
data structures, software design, concepts of programming languages, and
computer organization and architecture."

That last one, "computer organization and architecture" is precisely the
coursework I described. The IEEE and ACM also call for similar
coursework in undergraduate Comp Sci programs.

John writes:

If you want to write good efficient code it is most certainly needed.

Arguably true, but good, efficient code isn't important today. All anyone
cares about is time to market and feature bloat. I haven't seen good,
efficient code in an extremely long time. Perhaps if it were more common, it
wouldn't be necessary to have desktop computers ten million times more
powerful than an early IBM 360 just to write a letter.

If all you want to be is a script kiddie then I supposed understanding what
your doing is not really needed.

"Fourth generation" is often a euphemism for that.

Rich Ahrens writes:

You said, "This has never been a requirement for computer programmers."

Right. It's an accurate generalization.

Many programmers (obviously not all) come out of Comp Sci programs.

Obviously not all, as you say. And not all computer science programs require
assembly language.

In order to get accredited (at least
in the U.S., but I'd bet it's a pretty broadly implemented standard), a
Comp Sci program has to include a course like the one I described.

Accredited by whom? There is no single source for accreditation, and heaping
one form of credentialism upon another doesn't accomplish much.

That last one, "computer organization and architecture" is precisely the
coursework I described. The IEEE and ACM also call for similar
coursework in undergraduate Comp Sci programs.

If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited" programs,
why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000 MIPS
get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years ago?

On Mar 8, 1:25 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited" programs,
why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000 MIPS
get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years ago?

On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

You really, really, really must avoid commenting upon things you know
absolutely nothing about.

The increase in processing speed has provided visible, direct benefits
to software of all types.

Your stupidity continues to amaze and entertain.

Keep it up.

Dan

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 1:25 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited"
programs,
why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000
MIPS
get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years
ago?

On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

You really, really, really must avoid commenting upon things you know
absolutely nothing about.


But that is his forte.

Dan writes:

On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
debugging it, and supporting it.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dan writes:

On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
debugging it, and supporting it.


Says unemployed boi


Bertie

On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dan writes:
On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
debugging it, and supporting it.

Riiiiiiiight....

Then the stuff YOU work on must be some real crap.

Dan

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dan writes:

On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
debugging it, and supporting it.


Which of course, based on your stellar success at doing so, explains
why you can't even afford to take an introductory flight lesson and why
you need to beg on Amazon.com for books you can't afford to buy for
yourself.