Subj : Re: Industry Calls for More Foreign Programmers
To   : comp.programming
From : Mike
Date : Thu Aug 25 2005 03:04 pm

In article <1124885709.469618.270740@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, spinoza1111@yahoo.com says...
> 
> 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.
> 
I won't ask for your source of statistics for this factoid but, even where it true, enterprise system developers do not 
make up the entirety of those who use databases.

> 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.
> 
Ahhh - so you didn't mean users, you mean programmers. Even this is too broad a brush; many programmers are concerned 
in developing systems with relatively finite database requirements. They (the programmes) don't all need to optimised 
100% and 'a few rules' are usually sufficient to ensure they are not hideously sub-optimal.

> 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.
> 
So just how expert does the user have to be? Do you also require complete and absolute understanding of all aspects of 
the programming language, compiler, operating system, user interfaces, hardware, communication protocols, etc.
Did you for example, back in the days when you wrote c code, have a _complete_ understanding of the c language, of the 
c compiler, and of the assemblage of tubes, valves and cranks upon which the code was executed? How about the physics 
underlying the operation of the electronics?

> 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.
> 
Now we have narrowed things down to DB programmers. On the understanding that a DB programmer is one who writes the 
code or components that instantiates the DB, I would be in agreement. On the understanding that a DB programmer is one 
who writes applications that utilises the code or components written by the first programmer, it may be desirable for 
optimal efficiency - but hardly a requirement. On the understanding that the a DB programmer is one who uses DB 
software it is close to useless - the 'few simple rules' will suffice.

> > >
> > > 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:
> > ...
> > 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?
> 
Because they are unwilling or unable to learn the simple and relatively broad rules, or maybe because 80% of American-
designed and -built cars are unreliable :). 

Mike

.