How competent are we?
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 7 Jul 2008 06:53 It is interesting to me to see the differences between the world of COBOL and the world outside that, and try to understand both. COBOL evolved in an era when there was no computer science (or only very vestigial traces of it), when everything was powered from a central processor that simply interacted through dumb peripherals, and that mode of operation was perfectly adequate for "data processing". Most of us are coming to accept that the world has moved on, and computer programming today has to address much more complex environments than the simple COBOL model ever did. Here is a competency matrix which shows what most of the young programmers of today are expected to be familiar with: http://www.indiangeek.net/wp-content/uploads/Programmer%20competency%20matrix.htm I found it quite sobering and I was far from level 3 in more than one area... (I'm taking immediate steps to improve my competency... :-)) I think it gives insight into the way that things are addressed now and what is important. Notice the emphasis on tool and IDE knowledge, the understanding required of data and data structures, and knowledge of reuse, components, and OO taken as read. I really liked the level 1 database criterion: "Thinks EXCEL is a database".... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Michael Mattias on 7 Jul 2008 08:44 "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:6deauaF224l5U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > Here is a competency matrix which shows what most of the young programmers > of today are expected to be familiar with: > > http://www.indiangeek.net/wp-content/uploads/Programmer%20competency%20matrix.htm Excellent link, which I have once again appropriated (with a credit to yourself for posting) on my "other language" programming forum. > I found it quite sobering and I was far from level 3 in more than one > area... Um, where do I get in line? Thank goodness Old Age and Treachery Shall Overcome Youth and Skill. MCM
From: Anonymous on 7 Jul 2008 08:56 In article <6deauaF224l5U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >I really liked the level 1 database criterion: "Thinks EXCEL is a >database".... :-) What gave me a smile was 'With the increase in outsourcing of programming tasks to places where English is not the native tongue this issue has become more prominent. I know of several projects that failed because the programmers could not understand what the intent of the communication was.' Has anyone ever seen something similar happen with in-house development? Then there was 'Code assumptions are verified using asserts, code flows naturally - no deep nesting of conditionals or methods'... and that can be rather tricky to achieve, expecially when the code is about decisions made in systems (manufacturing, insurance, finance, regulatory compliance) which are, by their very nature, deeply nested and anything *but* 'natural'. DD
From: Robert on 7 Jul 2008 13:03 On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:53:58 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >It is interesting to me to see the differences between the world of COBOL >and the world outside that, and try to understand both. > >COBOL evolved in an era when there was no computer science (or only very >vestigial traces of it), when everything was powered from a central >processor that simply interacted through dumb peripherals, and that mode of >operation was perfectly adequate for "data processing". > >Most of us are coming to accept that the world has moved on, and computer >programming today has to address much more complex environments than the >simple COBOL model ever did. > >Here is a competency matrix which shows what most of the young programmers >of today are expected to be familiar with: > >http://www.indiangeek.net/wp-content/uploads/Programmer%20competency%20matrix.htm > >I found it quite sobering and I was far from level 3 in more than one >area... (I'm taking immediate steps to improve my competency... :-)) > >I think it gives insight into the way that things are addressed now and what >is important. Notice the emphasis on tool and IDE knowledge, the >understanding required of data and data structures, and knowledge of reuse, >components, and OO taken as read. > >I really liked the level 1 database criterion: "Thinks EXCEL is a >database".... :-) It should be subtitled How One Computer Science Guy Sees Working Programmers I was struck by how little Computer Science Guy knows about databases. The skills are shifted right one position. His level 3 belongs in level 2 and he has no clue what level 3 gurus do.
From: Richard on 7 Jul 2008 15:48
On Jul 7, 10:53 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > It is interesting to me to see the differences between the world of COBOL > and the world outside that, and try to understand both. > > COBOL evolved in an era when there was no computer science (or only very > vestigial traces of it), when everything was powered from a central > processor that simply interacted through dumb peripherals, and that mode of > operation was perfectly adequate for "data processing". It is arguable whether what is called 'computer science' is in fact science at all. I am sure that there was more actual 'science' being applied in software in the 1950s because the programmers were more involved with the designing and building of the machines. Of course computing and computers developed from business machines that went back to Pascal (Blaise not Wirth) so Cobol implemented what had been done with unit record machines, tabulators, sorters and calculators (such as the ICT 555 which I saw in an insurance office in Wellington just before it was decommissioned). The science was electro- mechanical. > Most of us are coming to accept that the world has moved on, and computer > programming today has to address much more complex environments than the > simple COBOL model ever did. > > Here is a competency matrix which shows what most of the young programmers > of today are expected to be familiar with: > > http://www.indiangeek.net/wp-content/uploads/Programmer%20competency%... > > I found it quite sobering and I was far from level 3 in more than one > area... (I'm taking immediate steps to improve my competency... :-)) > > I think it gives insight into the way that things are addressed now and what > is important. Notice the emphasis on tool and IDE knowledge, the > understanding required of data and data structures, and knowledge of reuse, > components, and OO taken as read. He has just listed what he claims to know and called that 'level 3'. For example Erlang and Prolog (twice!). But he probably can't explain the difference between an invoice and a dispatch note. As for "Maintains a blog in which personal insights and thoughts on programming are shared". Yeah, I bet he does, he listens with his mouth. > I really liked the level 1 database criterion: "Thinks EXCEL is a > database".... :-) > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |