Is it Art? WAS:Re: How to talk like a programmer
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Ping Warren Simmons
Next: Outsourcing across national borders was Re: How to talk like a programmer
From: Bill Gunshannon on 27 May 2010 13:41 In article <8666vqFdchU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > <snip> >>> >>> I do not see the IT business in the USA as being in any sort of >>> different condition than any other business in the USA... but >>> perhaps my vision is limited, aye. >>> >> >> Sadly. I agree. But that doesn't decrease the cesspool that the IT >> indistry is sinking into. And, as a real IT Professional I am more >> concerned about my art than others. >> > > A thought-provoking post, Bill. > > Is IT today an "art" or an "occupation", a "science" or something else > entirely? Do the semantics really matter? I used the term "art" as a literary device. I could have just as easily used the term "profession" with no change in meaning. > > There was a time when IT was a mysterious cult. The practioners were like > wizards practising a dark art that the general public regarded with awe and > suspicion. Yeah, I keep hearing this but to be honest, I have never seen any more of this in IT than in engineering, science, medicine or even Sports Car mechanics. (Trust me, tuning a pair of 40 DCOE Weber Carbs is much more art than enginering and the 2 triple Solex on a Porsche 911T the same!!) > > (Robert Townsend, in his 1970 classic, "Up the Organization" spoke of IT > people as "Magicians" who cavorted in front of the mainframe casting spells > and "building a mystique, a Priesthood, their own mumbo-jumbo ritual to > keep you from knowing what they - and you - are doing." From what I remember > of the time this was pretty accurate.) Sorry, as I said above I never saw anythng that fits this description and certainly nothing differnt from other fields that required a lot of obscure knowledge the common man never acquired. > > In 1965 only a very small percentage of the general public had any idea of > how a computer worked or what was involved in programming it. In 1968 only a very small percentage of the general public had any idea how a Porsche or Alfa Romeo worked or waht was involved in tuning it. In 1968 only a very small percentage of the general public had any idea how an HW-101 worked or what was involved in actually makign it work. > > Programming was an "art" inasmuch as it sought to optimise things (like > space against time) in a way that could not be taught but relied on the > intuition and imagination of the programmer. Apply same to my two examples above. > > As the technology progressed these constraints were removed (processor speed > increased thousands of times and memory space became so vast that the need > to save a few bytes here and there disappeared). Not really, but that seems to be what we are teaching today. Thus the bloated code that people use ontheir PC's everyday. > > Standardised approaches and "best practises" were developed. In terms of > "art" that would be like painting with numbers. And many of them abandoned even though they are still needed as what was once a profession was tossed like pearls before the swine. > > With the advent of "personal" computers in the early 1980s and the > subsequent explosion of their use throughout the 1990s and the first decade > of this century, to the point where millions of people have a programmable > "computer" in their pocket, ability to write software became available to > anyone who had an interest in it. Sadly, there are a lot more people with this "interest" than with the actual ability. Funny how we say, "If it were easy, everyone would do it." when talking about something as simple as baseball and yet we willingly accept that anyone can be a computer programmer. > > Today, millions of people write programs and scripts. A whole generation is > growing up with computer technology and taking it for granted the way they > do a TV, refrigerator or washing machine. In most case, very badly. > > Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but whether the > results are "art" or not is something to be argued over a beer. :-) Exactly. Writting a program does not make one a programmer any more than painting something on canvas makes one an artist.. > > (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno much about > art, but I knows what I likes...") And while the art world is very selective about what is "art" and who is an "artist" the IT world accepts any and all comers no matter how bad their product. > > Computer Science is taught as an adjunct to many University courses or as a > specialised course of study in its own right. > > Note that they don't call it "Computer Art" (although that is also a > specialised area of computer use). It should be noted that Computer Science is not accepted as a Science by any of normal Sciences. No CMPS Course here is accepted as meeting the "Natural Science" requirements of the Gen Ed portion of all degrees. And to add insult to injury, while in the long run they didn't win the argument, there were strong objections to relocating the Computing Sciences Department in the currently under construction University Science Center. > > So is IT an Art? > > I believe it was once, but not any more. Today it can be taught and learned > like any other branch of Science. I don't agree. I watch many students change major away from CS and CIS because they find they do not have waht it takes to do this job. I have seen many people in the real world who have IT jobs but are totally incapable of actually creating functional programs. > > So that leaves us with "Professional". > > Can you make a living entirely from IT knowledge? Possibly, but the field is > shrinking. These days, technical knowhow simply isn't enough. You need > understanding of the business and the whole picture (a bit like Professor > Deming's "Profound Knowledge") to successfully design, build, and implement > useful computer systems. I don;t think the fieeld is shrinking at all. Quite the contrary, there are ore IT jobs today than there have ever been in the past. But, sadly, anyone can claim to be an IT Professional today. It happened mostly after the dot-com bust over here when you had high-school computer geeks who ran a Linux website from their mom's garage claiming to be "unemployed IT Professionals" when they couldn't get a real job. (We actually had a kid show up here wanting to be granted credit for his vast experience running "a computer consulting business" while he was in high school. Needless to say, he wasn't graned the credit and he never finished the program. > > So what exactly, in today's terms, is a "real IT Professional"? (are there > "imaginary IT Professionals"? :-)) That is the real question. And, it is somethig the profession needs to establish but not int he manor it is being done today by creating all these "Certification" programs who's sole purpose is to create another way to make money while delivering no product. > > And if the whole industry is "descending into a cesspool", as you claim, how > would you go about flushing it? Many years ago there was talk of certifying IT Professionals. I was against it and based on what we see today (MCSE, CCNA, etc.) I was right. But I think there needs to be some sort of certification done by some (as yet non-existant) body. But I am not holding my breath and expect to retire while things are still just as bad. > > Interested to hear your thoughts. Posted above. > > I don't personally have a such a pessimistic view. I believe IT is being > subsumed into other fields of endeavour and I don't think it is a bad thing. > The pursuit of pure IT research is being left to Acadaemia. (In the old days > we used to do our own experiments to find what was good and what was not...) > The addition of computer technology has led to major breakthroughs in fields > like Medicine (could you imagine cataloging the Human genome with filing > cards, or even punched cards or paper tape?), Engineering (simulation of > earthquake damage has led to better building design in many countires > affected by eartuakes, including NZ), Communications (could we run the > worlds networks without computers?), and many other fields of endeavour. (In > fact, increasingly, just about EVERY field of endeavour.) > > Companies are increasingly moving to outsource their IT requirements, or > divest themselves of the old IT Development Centre, largely because they > don't need it any more. IT for many companies now consists of network > maintenance and rollout of new software or packages (NOT written in-house). That's a big pendulum. It has swung in both directions. Sadly, many companies today are trying to burn their boats even though many are also seeing that move was a mistake. > > As understanding and expertise has proliferated away from the hands of the > few and into the hands of the many, the "old school" form of IT Professional > has become less relevant. Only if you actually believe that "understanding and expertise has proliferated away from the hands of the few and into the hands of the many"'. Like I said, writing a program doesn't make you a programmer any more than putting paint on canvas makes you an artist. > Today we have "network specialists", "database > specialists", "package specialists", "business specialists", "configuration > specialists" who all consider themselves to be "IT Professionals". And there you have the crux of the matter. They consider themselves to be IT Professionals. The sad part is that too many others also accept this self-claimed appelation deserving or not. > > It isn't confined to Programmers and Analysts any more. (Maybe in companies > whose business is software development, but not in general terms for most > commercial organisations.) > > The world has changed and the IT world has gone with that change. But the IT world has gone in a direction that has been totally rejected by other fields. Even if you graduate from college with an engineering degree in most states you can not refer to yourself as an engineer until you have been certified. Or, our other example. Paint something and try to get a reputable galarey to show it. Get a degree in education and try to get a job as a teacher. And yet, run a Linux box in your basement for a year and suddenly you are an IT Professional? > > Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago. To each his own, but it does not bode well for the industry. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: Howard Brazee on 27 May 2010 14:21 On 27 May 2010 17:41:11 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >> As the technology progressed these constraints were removed (processor speed >> increased thousands of times and memory space became so vast that the need >> to save a few bytes here and there disappeared). > >Not really, but that seems to be what we are teaching today. Thus the >bloated code that people use ontheir PC's everyday. So what is wrong with code that, by our standards, is bloated? >Sadly, there are a lot more people with this "interest" than with the >actual ability. Funny how we say, "If it were easy, everyone would do >it." when talking about something as simple as baseball and yet we >willingly accept that anyone can be a computer programmer. I have a real interest in playing golf - without the actual ability. It may be sad that I keep playing, but I enjoy it. >Exactly. Writting a program does not make one a programmer any more than >painting something on canvas makes one an artist.. Painting something on canvas *does* make one an artist. And writing a program not only makes someone a programmer, but if the program satisfies the requirements, then it doesn't matter if *I* don't care for the code. >> (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno much about >> art, but I knows what I likes...") > >And while the art world is very selective about what is "art" and who is >an "artist" the IT world accepts any and all comers no matter how bad >their product. I think the art world accepts a much wider variety of what is "art" than the IT world accepts what is programming. If the programmer doesn't achieve the desired results, he either is fired, or if he is working for his own satisfaction, he gives up. >It should be noted that Computer Science is not accepted as a Science by >any of normal Sciences. It is neither an art nor a science. But marketing uses terms it wishes to use. >I don't agree. I watch many students change major away from CS and CIS >because they find they do not have waht it takes to do this job. I have >seen many people in the real world who have IT jobs but are totally >incapable of actually creating functional programs. For all jobs there are people who aren't suited to do the job. We're different. >I don;t think the fieeld is shrinking at all. Quite the contrary, there >are ore IT jobs today than there have ever been in the past. But, sadly, >anyone can claim to be an IT Professional today. Or yesterday, or last year, or when I started programming. I do have multiple certifications and a masters in the field, but they don't make me a professional. My paychecks make me a professional. >Many years ago there was talk of certifying IT Professionals. I was >against it and based on what we see today (MCSE, CCNA, etc.) I was right. >But I think there needs to be some sort of certification done by some >(as yet non-existant) body. But I am not holding my breath and expect >to retire while things are still just as bad. What criteria would this body use? >Only if you actually believe that "understanding and expertise has >proliferated away from the hands of the few and into the hands of the many"'. >Like I said, writing a program doesn't make you a programmer any more than >putting paint on canvas makes you an artist. That's what you said. And I disagreed. > >> Today we have "network specialists", "database >> specialists", "package specialists", "business specialists", "configuration >> specialists" who all consider themselves to be "IT Professionals". > >And there you have the crux of the matter. They consider themselves to >be IT Professionals. The sad part is that too many others also accept >this self-claimed appelation deserving or not. They are IT professionals. And it is an employer-claimed appellation. >But the IT world has gone in a direction that has been totally rejected >by other fields. Even if you graduate from college with an engineering >degree in most states you can not refer to yourself as an engineer until >you have been certified. This is pretty much a left-over of craft guilds, designed to keep the supply low. Being certified is not sufficient to mean someone's competent. And there are competent workers who aren't certified. >Or, our other example. Paint something and >try to get a reputable galarey to show it. Define "reputable". Anything can be shown - the criterion used is whether the gallery will make money by showing it. >Get a degree in education >and try to get a job as a teacher. And yet, run a Linux box in your >basement for a year and suddenly you are an IT Professional? Only if you make money doing it. >> Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago. > >To each his own, but it does not bode well for the industry. I'm not sure what you mean by "the industry". Does it include applications on your smart phone? Major players such as Oracle? Lower managers with spreadsheets? Let's say we had two worlds to play with, one which had the certification you seem to be wishing for, and one without. What criteria could we use to measure which was better for "the industry" and "the world"? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Pete Dashwood on 28 May 2010 00:51 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <l31tv51dgaubqnt00k90p5nfb6r5lmmi6f(a)4ax.com>, > SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >> As for programming being an "Art"...the old saying, "Art for Art's >> Sake" seems appropriate. I take pride in my programs but many of the >> younger folks I work with do not take pride in theirs. They don't >> care about efficiency of code; they don't care that they could easily >> reduce redundancy; they don't care if the 5 deep nested IF is hard to >> read etc. etc. Get it done, hope it works, move on is the latest way >> to do things. > > The 'durned fool kids nowadays' stuff aside... it has been posted, > repeatedly, that programming will reach a state where source code is > unnecessary. Who cares if you can't read the stuff if you don't have > to? Who cares about efficiency when your wristwatch has more > computing power than did the early space flights? Who cares about > *anything* because All Ya Gotta Do is write another object and all > the problems Just Go Away? Doc, it is only fair to tell you that, having frequented this forum for far too long, I have actually absorbed some of what you say. :-) These days I bite my tongue every time I am tempted to say:"All ya gotta do is..." As you pointed out way back when, the people who use this phrase are almost invariably people who have no grasp of the implications, finer points or even the obvious problems in their suggested solution. Nowadays, when someone says this to me I say:" Don't you just love that phrase? Might I suggest that what you are proposing is far from ALL we gotta do? ONE of the things we gotta do is sit down and plan properly, work through to a viable solution and make sure we are aware of any limitations or pitfalls in it. We can certainly take your suggestion as a basis, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that is ALL there is until we can establish that beyond doubt." It usually stops them in their tracks and there are murmurs of approval. For myself, I simply don't utter the phrase any more. (If I think it, I suppress it before it gets spoken :-)) Thank you for this. :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 28 May 2010 01:50 Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <8666vqFdchU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> <snip> >>>> >>>> I do not see the IT business in the USA as being in any sort of >>>> different condition than any other business in the USA... but >>>> perhaps my vision is limited, aye. >>>> >>> >>> Sadly. I agree. But that doesn't decrease the cesspool that the IT >>> indistry is sinking into. And, as a real IT Professional I am more >>> concerned about my art than others. >>> >> >> A thought-provoking post, Bill. >> >> Is IT today an "art" or an "occupation", a "science" or something >> else entirely? > > Do the semantics really matter? I used the term "art" as a literary > device. I could have just as easily used the term "profession" with > no change in meaning. > Yes, I thought afterwards that you may not have inended the same use of "art" as I did. >> >> There was a time when IT was a mysterious cult. The practioners were >> like wizards practising a dark art that the general public regarded >> with awe and suspicion. > > Yeah, I keep hearing this but to be honest, I have never seen any more > of this in IT than in engineering, science, medicine or even Sports > Car mechanics. (Trust me, tuning a pair of 40 DCOE Weber Carbs is > much > more art than enginering and the 2 triple Solex on a Porsche 911T the > same!!) > It's a very good example... >> >> (Robert Townsend, in his 1970 classic, "Up the Organization" spoke >> of IT people as "Magicians" who cavorted in front of the mainframe >> casting spells and "building a mystique, a Priesthood, their own >> mumbo-jumbo ritual to keep you from knowing what they - and you - >> are doing." From what I remember of the time this was pretty >> accurate.) > > Sorry, as I said above I never saw anythng that fits this description > and certainly nothing differnt from other fields that required a lot > of obscure knowledge the common man never acquired. Well, I did. I remember many of my colleagues at the time considering themselves superior to the peple who consumed their service. They saw "computer programming" as a closed shop and they loved the fact that it was regarded with awe by the general public. On one memorable occasion in the mid 1960s I was at a party where one of my colleagues actually said (in a louder than necessary voice): "Well, speaking as a COMPUTER PROGRAMMER..." He was interrupted by a fairly drunken Scotsman who had a much better grasp on Reality. "COMPUTER PROGRAMMER?!!! Ye're just a Space Age, CLERK, Laddie..." The room dissolved in laughter and I have never forgotten the incident. > >> >> In 1965 only a very small percentage of the general public had any >> idea of how a computer worked or what was involved in programming it. > > In 1968 only a very small percentage of the general public had any > idea > how a Porsche or Alfa Romeo worked or waht was involved in tuning it. > > In 1968 only a very small percentage of the general public had any > idea > how an HW-101 worked or what was involved in actually makign it work. > >> >> Programming was an "art" inasmuch as it sought to optimise things >> (like space against time) in a way that could not be taught but >> relied on the intuition and imagination of the programmer. > > Apply same to my two examples above. > >> >> As the technology progressed these constraints were removed >> (processor speed increased thousands of times and memory space >> became so vast that the need to save a few bytes here and there >> disappeared). > > Not really, but that seems to be what we are teaching today. Thus the > bloated code that people use ontheir PC's everyday. > And yet working applications are still being produced... :-) >> >> Standardised approaches and "best practises" were developed. In >> terms of "art" that would be like painting with numbers. > > And many of them abandoned even though they are still needed as what > was once a profession was tossed like pearls before the swine. That would be imitation pearls cheaply manufactured in Asia and the sub-continent, but pearls nevertheless. > >> >> With the advent of "personal" computers in the early 1980s and the >> subsequent explosion of their use throughout the 1990s and the first >> decade of this century, to the point where millions of people have a >> programmable "computer" in their pocket, ability to write software >> became available to anyone who had an interest in it. > > Sadly, there are a lot more people with this "interest" than with the > actual ability. Funny how we say, "If it were easy, everyone would do > it." when talking about something as simple as baseball and yet we > willingly accept that anyone can be a computer programmer. > >> >> Today, millions of people write programs and scripts. A whole >> generation is growing up with computer technology and taking it for >> granted the way they do a TV, refrigerator or washing machine. > > In most case, very badly. > I guess it is arguable and comes down to how you measure "success". If a program "works" it can't really be "bad" (certainly not as "bad" as one that doesn't work :-)) On the other hand if efficienct and elegant code are factored in, then even a "working" program may not be so good. >> >> Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but >> whether the results are "art" or not is something to be argued over >> a beer. :-) > > Exactly. Writting a program does not make one a programmer any more > than painting something on canvas makes one an artist.. > But if the result is pleasing to people then it is arguable that it is "art". >> >> (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno >> much about art, but I knows what I likes...") > > And while the art world is very selective about what is "art" and who > is > an "artist" the IT world accepts any and all comers no matter how bad > their product. > As noted above, it seems to hinge on how we define "bad". >> >> Computer Science is taught as an adjunct to many University courses >> or as a specialised course of study in its own right. >> >> Note that they don't call it "Computer Art" (although that is also a >> specialised area of computer use). > > It should be noted that Computer Science is not accepted as a Science > by > any of normal Sciences. No CMPS Course here is accepted as meeting > the "Natural Science" requirements of the Gen Ed portion of all > degrees. > And to add insult to injury, while in the long run they didn't win the > argument, there were strong objections to relocating the Computing > Sciences Department in the currently under construction University > Science Center. > It is interesting to see "professionals" being so jealous of each other. >> >> So is IT an Art? >> >> I believe it was once, but not any more. Today it can be taught and >> learned like any other branch of Science. > > I don't agree. I watch many students change major away from CS and > CIS because they find they do not have waht it takes to do this job. I embrace your right to disagree; there wouldn't be much discussion if we all agreed on everything. :-) Nevertheless, I think there is a difference between a subject being able to be taught and people having a desire or aptitude to learn it. Perhaps I should rephrase: "Given a person has average intelligence and a desire to learn, I believe a computer programming language like, say, COBOL can be taught to them." I believe this because I have actually done it. Now, we can probably both agree that knowing a language doesn't make you a "programmer", but given experience, "best practises", "patterns" and the ability to see relationships between things (one of the definitions of "intelligence"), then they can become a programmer, just as they could become a dentist, a lawyer, or any of the so-called professions. Another way of putting it would be that none of the professions have practitioners who were born to do it. The skill is an acquired one. However, they have degrees of differing skill within the profession. > I have seen many people in the real world who have IT jobs but are > totally incapable of actually creating functional programs. I have seen one or two, but definitely not "many". I encountered one guy who had worked in a corporation for 18 months and never got a program to execute successfully. :-) I don't blame him, I blame the idiots who were supposed to be managing him. > >> >> So that leaves us with "Professional". >> >> Can you make a living entirely from IT knowledge? Possibly, but the >> field is shrinking. These days, technical knowhow simply isn't >> enough. You need understanding of the business and the whole picture >> (a bit like Professor Deming's "Profound Knowledge") to successfully >> design, build, and implement useful computer systems. > > I don;t think the fieeld is shrinking at all. Quite the contrary, > there > are ore IT jobs today than there have ever been in the past. I just checked JOBSERVE UK for COBOL... they are showing a total of 22,148 IT jobs, of which 10 are for COBOL. I remember checking in 1981 and finding the total jobs was around 8,000 with over 4000 requiring COBOL. On these figures you are correct and the field for IT jobs is expanding. Obviously, the definition of what constitutes an "IT job" has expanded too, but I'll stand corrected. > But, > sadly, anyone can claim to be an IT Professional today. It happened > mostly after the dot-com bust over here when you had high-school > computer geeks who ran > a Linux website from their mom's garage claiming to be "unemployed IT > Professionals" when they couldn't get a real job. (We actually had a > kid show up here wanting to be granted credit for his vast experience > running "a computer consulting business" while he was in high school. > Needless > to say, he wasn't graned the credit and he never finished the program. > He probably can buy and sell both of us put together by now... :-) >> >> So what exactly, in today's terms, is a "real IT Professional"? (are >> there "imaginary IT Professionals"? :-)) > > That is the real question. And, it is somethig the profession needs > to establish but not int he manor it is being done today by creating > all > these "Certification" programs who's sole purpose is to create another > way to make money while delivering no product. > I agree 100% on this. I am quite sure it is a revenue generator more than a "professional" qualification. (I base this on havng worked with some of the "graduates"... >> >> And if the whole industry is "descending into a cesspool", as you >> claim, how would you go about flushing it? > > Many years ago there was talk of certifying IT Professionals. I was > against it and based on what we see today (MCSE, CCNA, etc.) I was > right. But I think there needs to be some sort of certification done > by some (as yet non-existant) body. But I am not holding my breath > and expect > to retire while things are still just as bad. > >> >> Interested to hear your thoughts. > > Posted above. > Thanks for that. I think you made some good points. >> >> I don't personally have a such a pessimistic view. I believe IT is >> being subsumed into other fields of endeavour and I don't think it >> is a bad thing. The pursuit of pure IT research is being left to >> Acadaemia. (In the old days we used to do our own experiments to >> find what was good and what was not...) The addition of computer >> technology has led to major breakthroughs in fields like Medicine >> (could you imagine cataloging the Human genome with filing cards, or >> even punched cards or paper tape?), Engineering (simulation of >> earthquake damage has led to better building design in many >> countires affected by eartuakes, including NZ), Communications >> (could we run the worlds networks without computers?), and many >> other fields of endeavour. (In fact, increasingly, just about EVERY >> field of endeavour.) >> >> Companies are increasingly moving to outsource their IT >> requirements, or divest themselves of the old IT Development Centre, >> largely because they don't need it any more. IT for many companies >> now consists of network maintenance and rollout of new software or >> packages (NOT written in-house). > > That's a big pendulum. It has swung in both directions. Sadly, many > companies today are trying to burn their boats even though many are > also seeing that move was a mistake. > >> >> As understanding and expertise has proliferated away from the hands >> of the few and into the hands of the many, the "old school" form of >> IT Professional has become less relevant. > > Only if you actually believe that "understanding and expertise has > proliferated away from the hands of the few and into the hands of the > many"'. Like I said, writing a program doesn't make you a programmer > any more than putting paint on canvas makes you an artist. True. Nevertheless, I have had to deal with some "amateur" efforts that were really excellent. As in most fields of endeavour, an enthusiastic amateur can often achieve the same levels of proficiency as a less passionate professional. > >> Today we have "network specialists", >> "database specialists", "package specialists", "business >> specialists", "configuration specialists" who all consider >> themselves to be "IT Professionals". > > And there you have the crux of the matter. They consider themselves > to > be IT Professionals. The sad part is that too many others also accept > this self-claimed appelation deserving or not. > >> >> It isn't confined to Programmers and Analysts any more. (Maybe in >> companies whose business is software development, but not in general >> terms for most commercial organisations.) >> >> The world has changed and the IT world has gone with that change. > > But the IT world has gone in a direction that has been totally > rejected > by other fields. Even if you graduate from college with an > engineering degree in most states you can not refer to yourself as an > engineer until > you have been certified. Or, our other example. Paint something and > try to get a reputable galarey to show it. Get a degree in education > and try to get a job as a teacher. And yet, run a Linux box in your > basement for a year and suddenly you are an IT Professional? > Excellent examples. You have a valid point. >> >> Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago. > > To each his own, but it does not bode well for the industry. > > bill Thanks for the responses, Bill. I read your post with interest. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 28 May 2010 01:55
TOP POST - nothing new below I read this with interest, Howard. I'm not sure we can equate professionalism with "earning money at it" but I have to agree it is certainly one definition. I have nothing to add and thought your points were fine. Pete. Howard Brazee wrote: > On 27 May 2010 17:41:11 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) > wrote: > > >>> As the technology progressed these constraints were removed >>> (processor speed increased thousands of times and memory space >>> became so vast that the need to save a few bytes here and there >>> disappeared). >> >> Not really, but that seems to be what we are teaching today. Thus >> the bloated code that people use ontheir PC's everyday. > > So what is wrong with code that, by our standards, is bloated? > > >> Sadly, there are a lot more people with this "interest" than with the >> actual ability. Funny how we say, "If it were easy, everyone would >> do >> it." when talking about something as simple as baseball and yet we >> willingly accept that anyone can be a computer programmer. > > I have a real interest in playing golf - without the actual ability. > It may be sad that I keep playing, but I enjoy it. > > >> Exactly. Writting a program does not make one a programmer any >> more than painting something on canvas makes one an artist.. > > Painting something on canvas *does* make one an artist. And writing > a program not only makes someone a programmer, but if the program > satisfies the requirements, then it doesn't matter if *I* don't care > for the code. > >>> (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno >>> much about art, but I knows what I likes...") >> >> And while the art world is very selective about what is "art" and >> who is >> an "artist" the IT world accepts any and all comers no matter how bad >> their product. > > I think the art world accepts a much wider variety of what is "art" > than the IT world accepts what is programming. If the programmer > doesn't achieve the desired results, he either is fired, or if he is > working for his own satisfaction, he gives up. > > >> It should be noted that Computer Science is not accepted as a >> Science by >> any of normal Sciences. > > It is neither an art nor a science. But marketing uses terms it > wishes to use. > > >> I don't agree. I watch many students change major away from CS and >> CIS because they find they do not have waht it takes to do this job. >> I have seen many people in the real world who have IT jobs but are >> totally incapable of actually creating functional programs. > > For all jobs there are people who aren't suited to do the job. We're > different. > > >> I don;t think the fieeld is shrinking at all. Quite the contrary, >> there >> are ore IT jobs today than there have ever been in the past. But, >> sadly, anyone can claim to be an IT Professional today. > > Or yesterday, or last year, or when I started programming. I do have > multiple certifications and a masters in the field, but they don't > make me a professional. My paychecks make me a professional. > > >> Many years ago there was talk of certifying IT Professionals. I was >> against it and based on what we see today (MCSE, CCNA, etc.) I was >> right. But I think there needs to be some sort of certification done >> by some (as yet non-existant) body. But I am not holding my breath >> and expect >> to retire while things are still just as bad. > > What criteria would this body use? > >> Only if you actually believe that "understanding and expertise has >> proliferated away from the hands of the few and into the hands of >> the many"'. Like I said, writing a program doesn't make you a >> programmer any more than putting paint on canvas makes you an artist. > > That's what you said. And I disagreed. > >> >>> Today we have "network specialists", >>> "database specialists", "package specialists", "business >>> specialists", "configuration specialists" who all consider >>> themselves to be "IT Professionals". >> >> And there you have the crux of the matter. They consider themselves >> to >> be IT Professionals. The sad part is that too many others also >> accept >> this self-claimed appelation deserving or not. > > They are IT professionals. > > And it is an employer-claimed appellation. > > >> But the IT world has gone in a direction that has been totally >> rejected >> by other fields. Even if you graduate from college with an >> engineering degree in most states you can not refer to yourself as >> an engineer until >> you have been certified. > > This is pretty much a left-over of craft guilds, designed to keep the > supply low. Being certified is not sufficient to mean someone's > competent. And there are competent workers who aren't certified. > >> Or, our other example. Paint something and >> try to get a reputable galarey to show it. > > Define "reputable". Anything can be shown - the criterion used is > whether the gallery will make money by showing it. > >> Get a degree in education >> and try to get a job as a teacher. And yet, run a Linux box in your >> basement for a year and suddenly you are an IT Professional? > > Only if you make money doing it. > >>> Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago. >> >> To each his own, but it does not bode well for the industry. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the industry". Does it include > applications on your smart phone? Major players such as Oracle? > Lower managers with spreadsheets? > > Let's say we had two worlds to play with, one which had the > certification you seem to be wishing for, and one without. What > criteria could we use to measure which was better for "the industry" > and "the world"? -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |