Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish 
Author Message
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish


Quote:



>>> It's really quite simple.  First of all, a very large percentage of
>>> the 98% do no work at all, that is, nothing, nada, zero, zippo,
>>> zilch.  Secondly, the balance are very, very unproductive relative
>>> to the top 2% of programmers.  If the bottom 98% of the programmers
>>> were removed from the scene, then the top 2% would be much *more*
>>> productive than they already are having been relieved of the dead-
>>> weight burden of the other 98%.

>> Shit, let me run to the phone.  I gotta call a couple of VP's I know
>> and tell 'em I got the solution to their programming backlog. "Hello,
>> Joe.  Fire 98% of your programming staff, tomorrow and you're total
>> productivity will go up. No. Really! I promise.

>That's exactly what I would do - if it weren't for one thing.  Yes,
>while the 98% are a drain on the oxygen resources of the office space
>thereby making the other 2% quite dreamy, we have just one other
>factor to consider:  if the V.P., himself, were not a member of the
>98%... figure out the rest yourself!

>> Now I get it, bet you program in hex, right.  "We don't need no
>> stinking compliers!"

>We *don't* need no stinking compilers.  Assemblers, yes; compilers
>no!  Supposedly all of the higher level language compilers and
>other tools were to enable the hiring of people off the street as
>programmers, but in actuality nothing could be further from the
>truth.  Every accommodation to dumb down programming for the masses
>has actually made it *MORE* intellectually demanding.  For example,
>in order to be a good, productive COBOL programmers, people still
>need not know assembler language in order to read a PMAP, and they
>are burdened with needing to know the idiosyncrasies of COBOL *and*
>how to work around those idiosyncrasies.  When it comes to under-
>standing and working around idiosyncrasies, you really have to
>be an accomplished genius to cope with DB2, IDMS, or certain fourth
>generation languages - not just a schmuck off the street!  You know
>I really laugh when people say how simply elegant DB2 is because
>it has only 12 or 13 SQL statements and how users can write their
>own queries using QMF.  Nothing could be further from the truth!
>First of all, most programmers cannot write a query that works, so
>how can you expect users to avoid screwing up royally?  Secondly,
>having a lot of logic in a centralized query with compounded,
>nested, mixed negative and positive conditions all in a big lump
>is equivalent to taking all of the IF statements which should be
>logically and appropriately sprinkled throughout the program and
>tying them into a big knot in one location in that program.  Not
>only is the rest of the program restructured awkwardly to accom-
>modate this, but the big, tight knot of logic in the query is
>difficult to untangle and understand.  In a couple of words:
>DB2 rots, and I did not even get to its idiosyncrasies!

>> I thought you'd relish the opportunity to prove wrong the
>> conventional wisdom. Guess not.

>Listen, bub, you don't go around just telling people that the
>world is round.  You have to do it in smaller doses.  Your
>dose today, or should I say, "installment", is above.

>> Now, prove it {*filter*}.

>I've already deemed it a useless endeavor to attempt to prove any-
>thing for the likes of you!

>Dash Langan

Darn, just when I'm ready to write Dash off as a clueless loser, he
starts to make some sense.  SQL and relational algebra is
complicated, more so than th SQL sales people will admit.  Some
systems can be easily written in assembly language and HOLs
are not needed in those cases.

I wouldn't generalize beyond that.

Cory Hamasaki       http://www.*-*-*.com/
HHResearch Co.     OS/2 Webstore & Newsletter
REDWOOD        



Sun, 12 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish

Quote:


> >For example,
> >in order to be a good, productive COBOL programmers, people still
> >need not know assembler language in order to read a PMAP, and they
> >are burdened with needing to know the idiosyncrasies of COBOL *and*
> >how to work around those idiosyncrasies.
> Darn, just when I'm ready to write Dash off as a clueless loser, he
> starts to make some sense.  SQL and relational algebra is
> complicated, more so than th SQL sales people will admit.  Some
> systems can be easily written in assembly language and HOLs
> are not needed in those cases.

> I wouldn't generalize beyond that.

> Cory Hamasaki      http://www.kiyoinc.com

Thanks for the vote of confidence and for making sense out of the
above sentence which contains two typos.  It should read:

For example, in order to be good, productive COBOL programmers,
people still need to know assembler language in order to read a
PMAP, and they are burdened with needing to know the idiosyncrasies
of COBOL *and* how to work around those idiosyncrasies.

Dash Langan



Mon, 13 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish


Quote:
> Darn, just when I'm ready to write Dash off as a clueless loser, he
> starts to make some sense.  SQL and relational algebra is
> complicated, . . . [snip]

Me too.   Though I wouldn't endorse much of what Dash has written,
but to play devil's advocate for a moment, it is a fact that a few men
working shoulder to shoulder can achieve things that no large team
has a hope in Hades of doing.   Here in the Silicon Valley it is almost
legendary.  Ever hear of Hewlett and Packard  or Wozniac and Jobs,
I could go on.      Let it suffice to remember that famous quote of the
then CEO of IBM who said something like "I'm at a loss to
understand how Setmour Cray and his small team could have
achieved what IBM Labs failed to achieve with all the manpower and
resources available to it".  Cray's retort "He  appears to have
answered his own question".  
If I were CIO of a giant Corporation in a Y2K bind right now I'd take
Cory and a few assistants he chose over a powerhouse multinational
consultancy.
And even paying them twice their asking price would still be cheaper
and better.   But then I obviously wouldn't last in such a role, how could
I justify a zillion dollar budget?   If the job got done under budget how
could it have been hard?

Henry Black P.E.



Mon, 13 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish

Quote:

> . . . in order to be good, productive COBOL programmers,
> people still need to know assembler language in order to read a
> PMAP. . .

True, but in my shop that's a security violation. . .  B-(=

---
Frank Ney  WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A  N4ZHG  LPWV  NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page   http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~croaker/batfabus.html
West {*filter*}ia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NOTICE: Flaming email received will be posted to the appropriate newsgroups
- --
"Some people just enjoy finding fault with our leaders.  They're anarchists.  
They're troublemakers.  Or they're just unpatriotic."
        - Julie Musante, "Political Officer"
          _Babylon 5_, _Voices Of Authority_, Third Season



Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish



Quote:


>> >For example,
>> >in order to be a good, productive COBOL programmers, people still
>> >need not know assembler language in order to read a PMAP, and they
>> >are burdened with needing to know the idiosyncrasies of COBOL *and*
>> >how to work around those idiosyncrasies.

>> Darn, just when I'm ready to write Dash off as a clueless loser, he
>> starts to make some sense.  SQL and relational algebra is
>> complicated, more so than th SQL sales people will admit.  Some
>> systems can be easily written in assembly language and HOLs
>> are not needed in those cases.

>> I wouldn't generalize beyond that.

>> Cory Hamasaki      http://www.kiyoinc.com

>Thanks for the vote of confidence and for making sense out of the
>above sentence which contains two typos.  It should read:

>For example, in order to be good, productive COBOL programmers,
>people still need to know assembler language in order to read a
>PMAP, and they are burdened with needing to know the idiosyncrasies
>of COBOL *and* how to work around those idiosyncrasies.

>Dash Langan

Perhaps this explains why the preferred language for modern computer
systems seems to be C++ (with the understanding the 95% of the C++
being written is really C).  C is a really really old high level
language that lets you shift into Assembler when the mood takes you.
I often see Assembler solutions to COOBL problems that usually cannot
be used because the use of such would violate installation standards.

MJL.



Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish



[Posted and mailed]


:>> . . . in order to be good, productive COBOL programmers,
:>> people still need to know assembler language in order to read a
:>> PMAP. . .

:>True, but in my shop that's a security violation. . .  B-(=

Is that some kind of smiley?

Please elaborate on your statement.

--


Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel



Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish


(Binyamin Dissen) spake unto us, saying:

Quote:


>:>True, but in my shop that's a security violation. . .  B-(=

>Is that some kind of smiley?

Looks like a frown wearing glasses with a beard (goatee?) to me.

Or suspenders.  :-)

--

      Written offline using PC Yarn + Yep + FTE under OS/2 Warp 4
             What was the best thing BEFORE sliced bread?



Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Whoa, was: Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish

RS> >:>True, but in my shop that's a security violation. . .  B-(=
RS> >
RS> >Is that some kind of smiley?

RS> Looks like a frown wearing glasses with a beard (goatee?) to me.

RS> Or suspenders.  :-)

Or the Lone Ranger w/ a droopy mustache and buck teeth.

---
 * OLX 1.53 * Did you ever stop to think, and then forget to restart?



Tue, 21 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 9 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish

2. Rebuttal to Gary Shell's Rot and Rubbish

3. Rebuttal to Peter Clark's Rubbish (WHAT?!?!?!?!?)

4. Rebuttal to Peter Clark's Rubbish

5. NINES CARD was: Gary North's qualifications

6. Scheme Shell: Shell Scripting for the 90's

7. Gary Kildall's comments on Logo

8. Rebuttal to Mr. Russell Nelson's complaint about SPL

9. Scheme Shell: Shell Scripting for the 90's

10. Gary's VRML page has moved

11. Scheme Shell: Shell Scripting for the 90's

12. Scheme Shell: Shell Scripting for the 90's

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software