Subj : Re: Industry Calls for More Foreign Programmers
To   : comp.programming
From : spinoza1111
Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 06:15 am


Mike wrote:
> In article <1124793460.596940.290900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, spinoza1111@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Databases are BUILT, in part, on "linked lists". To know how they work
> > and to use them effectively, you need to take a class in data
> > structures.
> >
> There is a degree of overstatement here. It is necessary to understand a _little_ about the workings of databases in
> order to use them efficiently, but taking a class in data structures probably exceeds the required understanding for
> most database users.

No, I don't think I have overstated the case at all, because at a rate
of about 80%, "enterprise systems" are developed by underqualified
programmers who have neither had academic training in an ACM approved
program, nor bothered to get it through self-study. At this rate they
fail.

Users, yes, programmers, no. There's an equivocation here between what
the programmer does when she uses a software tool, and what the user
does when he looks at a spreadsheet to run her business.

It is folly to encourage programmers to use tools with the same spirit,
and the best tools happen to be open source, and encourage the
programmer to help build them.

Based on these considerations, I think the best DB programmers use the
DB as a white box and not a black box. They could IDEALLY replicate the
data base as data structures but are too lazy or have other things to
do.

>
> >
> > The business claim that "a computer is like a car, and you do not have
> > to be a mechanic to drive a car" is idiotic. First of all, a computer
> > is not a car. Furthermore, MOST people drive poorly, both unsafely and
> > in such a way that they end up polluting the environment, and this is
> > because of the illusion that any moron has some sort of God-given right
> > to drive a car.
> >
> Similarly, you overstate the analogy. People may drive poorly if they have not been educated in efficient, economical,
> and safe driving techniques, but automotive engineering qualifications are not an appropriate requirement to improve
> their performance. Better, are sets of simple and relatively broad rules along the lines of:
>
> 1)	The fuel goes in this hole, the water goes in this one.
> 2)	Don't put the car into reverse when you are moving forwards at speed.
> 3)	If the car makes funny noises, pull over as soon as possible and get it checked out.
> 4)	Try to negotiate the road without making the tyres squeal.
> 5)	Drive at a speed appropriate to the traffic density, road, and weather conditions...
> 6)	etc...
>
> A few dozen 'rules' plus a bit of common sense is sufficient to make an 'average' driver or database user safe and
> efficient.

So why, we I lived in the USA, did there always seem to be some loser
pulled over to the side of the road with his car on fire?

Seriously, I don't think highly of US drivers. OK, they don't need to
know "automotive engineering" because at the interface between
information and energy, if you've used information correctly (used the
steering wheel correctly, and so forth) you can trust the energy to
behave according to James Clerk Maxwell's laws, and you don't have to
know them.

The trouble and the difference with computers being that they are
information and its evil twin (falsity) all the way down.
> 
> Mike

.