Re: Opinions on approach, please...

In article <9g5644h1fhodjs107iehs62ghv2pjl9en5@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:15:18 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx () wrote:
In article <5vu244p0dc0o4ml49ba96evmi0t6cr1k0g@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

As I was taught it - back in the days when telephones went
zicka-zicka-zick - the first three digits are the Area Code (distinguished
as being allowed a zero or a one in position 2),

That ended in 1995. FWIW, 0 was for states with one area code; 1
indicated an area code smaller than a state.

I recall being on a contract in 1992 and noticing the code for online
telephone-number verification rejected anything other than a '0' or '1' in
position two; upon pointing this out I was told 'yes, we're aware of
that... but it's not part of the project scope, we'll Deal With It Later.'


the next three the
Exchange (which might take its name from the first two digits:
BUtterfield-8 = 288, MAin-4 = 624, MUrray Hill-7 = 687)

The middle digit of an exchange could NOT be 0 or 1.

That might be a reason for my having stated, as quoted above, '... the
first three digits are the Area Code (DISTINGUISHED AS BEING ALLOWED A
ZERO OR A ONE IN POSITION 2)' (emphasis added).


Assignment of telephone numbers is like Cobol programming standards.
Practices live on
long after their technical rationale has disappeared.

Working equipment used to live on long after the capital for it was
depreciated, as well... and remembering that might help in understanding
the rationale for backwards compatibility. Just because the KSU in a
Major Metropolitan Center is updated with the latest technology does not
mean that the switchboard - in the sense of a board full of switches -
back in East Spider Crotch is going to be updated.

Dropping the 0/1 constraint on area codes caused a crisis in 1995. Many
non-traditional
telephone providors (called CLECs) had old switches with software writen
by companies that
had gone out of business. They could not change the code except by
disassembling machine
language, typically on oddball CPUs. There was a lot of money offered to
anyone who could
do it.

As noted above, Mr Wagner, at least one consultant/contractor/hired gun
was warning folks about this several years prior to the Big Switchover.


Practitioners
don't even remember
the reason for the standard. For instance, numbered paragraphs served as
an index in the
days of hardcopy program listings. We should have stopped using them
when we got text
editors in the 1970s.

Changing things requires resources, Mr Wagner... machine time, people time
and units of currency to pay for both. In the 1970s there were shops that
limited the number of compiles a programmer could submit per day and there
were memoranda sent out asking people to keep their TSO connect costs to a
minimum.

A buck spent on eliminating paragraph-numbers was a nickel a manager
didn't get in the yearly bonus; things Weren't Broke and things Didn't Get
Fixed.

Competition rids the commerce pool of companies that resist change.

Name one company, Mr Wagner, which was removed from the commerce pool
because it did not eliminate paragraph-numbers.

[snip]

I am kept away from Processes, Reviews, Evaluations and most Meetings...
people are amazed when they hear I don't submit biweekly Status Reports,
either. I'm usually kept off to the side and approached only when things
are Really, Really bad.

Rule of thumb: the more ways you have to report your time or activities,
the less
oversight is going on.

'The meetings will continue, all day, every day, until we found out why it
is that nothing's getting done!'

[snip]

What irks me is managers' refusal to believe there are logical errors in
production
programs, even though errors leap out from a cursory glance at the
source code. Managers
say it's impossible because the program has been tested six ways, plus
has been in
production for years. Their eyes glaze when shown the errant code, as
though they're being
asked to read cuneiform.

Managers are not supposed to read source code, Mr Wagner;

Why does the job spec always require a technical background?

I barely know why *I* require things, Mr Wagner, let alone some 'job
spec'; perhaps the HR Department wants to have something in reserve so
that in case they want to fire someone in the future they can trot out a
long-forgotten piece of paperwork and say 'Ahhhh... you lied here!'


Managers are
supposed to allocate, co-ordinate and motivate personnel and resources
towards the accomplishment of a stated Executive goal.

I agree with allocate and coordinate. More broadly, a manager should
EMPOWER people by
giving them opportunities, knowledge and tools. But a manager is not
responsible for their
motivation or ambition; only the worker can provide that, or not.

'Empowerment'? How 1980s... what comes next, Big Hair and
shoulderboard-laden women's suit-jackets? I'd say, Mr Wagner, that
ambition is personal, sure; motivation - in the radical sense of 'moving'
(motus) or 'cause-to-move' is both the responsibility of and benificent to
Management in that, at the very least, Management ensures that people get
paid.

If you want to
gain a Manager's attention then you might do so by pointing out how
correcting this error will make him look better than other Managers,
usually by appearing to save money.

(not by *actually* saving money... because if it decreases his own budget
the Manager will avoid doing so)

Try creating a competitive advantage, like the aforementioned 30K lines
of Cobol.

If the 'competitive advantage' does not make a given Manager look better
than other Managers I would doubt the success of offer, Mr Wagner.

[snip]

Kings don't do geometry. There are dukes, lords and freemen between the
monarch and his geometers.

That a king-to-be studied geometry, Mr Wagner, in no wise required the
king-which-became to 'do geometry', just as not-very-many students who
played (sport) did so after graduation or those who studied (instrument)
made a living playing one. The purpose of the study was not the later
'doing', it was in shaping the ability to learn.

Wannabes waste a lot of time preparing for something that will never
happen.

In my limited experience, Mr Wagner, 'that will never happen' is most
frequently cited by those of... even more limited experience.

Doers spend
that time doing things. I've been cranking code since I was 17.

According to the calendar there is no difference between having 20 years'
worth of experience and one year's worth 20 times over; as a barber once
told me 'Watch out for the guy who says 'I seen it all, I been cuttin'
hair fer twenny years!'; he'll cut your hair like they did twenny years
ago.'


Lucid/PCSG, best known for Lucid 3D, which won PC Magazine's award for
Best Application,
had 20 world class programmers. Not one of them had a degree in computer
science. Half had
no degree, the other half had degrees in philosophy, music, English
Literature and other
unrelated fields.

This has been noticed before, Mr Wagner... and commented upon in this very
forum in threads in which you've participated. From
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/be76bfccd2924636?dmode=source>

--begin quoted text:

As for training... somebody posted this here back in 1997 and to the best
of my knowledge not much has changed since then:

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6c29c3f3dc17173c?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8>

--begin quoted text:

[snip]

Years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on one of the major NY
houses... I think it was Morgan Stanley or Morgan Guaranty or the like.
They hired *only* the 'unhireable'... kids with BAs in Library Science,
Art History, etc... they put these kids through two years of hell, 60 - 70
hr weeks, and turned them into *crackerjack* programmers... and then saw
said kids being hired away by the competition at double or triple the
salary.

--end quoted text

--end quoted text

DD

.