Re: OT: The Geek defense

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:45:06 -0600, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Pete, I think you're missing the point. I agree that what they're teaching
now is sufficient for most applications programming. But for the foreseeable
future, we will still need skilled programmers to build the tools. You aren't
going to build .NET, for example, using .NET or other drag and drop tools.
If we aren't teaching those skills in our Computer Science curriculums,
where are future programmers going to learn them?

They'll learn the same way good programmers have always learned: self-education. By trying
things and studying others' code.

At a place that had 20 superstar programmers, I asked each whether he had a computer
science degree. Not a single one did. Half had no degree, the other half had degrees in
music, philosophy, classics, etc.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unix and OO Avoidance
    ... clean, side-effect free string concatenation, and that means creating lots ... Giving skilled programmers powerful tools. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Not Another C# Versus VB Article (It has a lot to say about Anders and Delphi)
    ... 80% of C# programmers are good, while 80% of VB programmers are not good. ... that is populated with less skilled programmers and because VB syntax ... and semantics make it more difficult to avoid common programming errors and ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: OT: The Geek defense
    ... we will still need skilled programmers to build the tools. ... Certainly not from CoBOL classes. ... Web page designers and those who design the tools are also different. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)