On 12/12/13 2:53 PM, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
> Wow talk about thin-skinned!
If that's the story you have to tell yourself, I'm very sorry.
> If I didn't have better things to do I could get seriously hacked off
> because as has already been explained here the intent of the thread had
> nothing to do with being upset at people not following XML rules.
I'm not sure why you think that being the original poster gives you
control over where a thread goes afterward or what it means. This list
is pretty famous for its wandering.
> AAMOF
> my personal inclination is to be happy that I may be competing with
> people that are using what I think are inferior tools to do the same task.
>
> But why let that fact ruin some good copy.
The article isn't about your happiness - it's about attitude, attitude
which may cause people who think they're great programmers to fall out
of favor rather quickly when their attitude stops fitting with
organizational reality.
The attitude was on vivid display in a part of the thread that
apparently I'm not allowed to talk about but you're allowed to defend.
> Anyway let me tell you the hole in your beautifully written argument.
If that's beautiful writing, we have another problem.
> You fail to distinguish between "Everybody should code" and "Everybody
> should be allowed to code for a living" which is invariably what the
> people who come to the XML list are doing.
I'm not sure why you think I don't make that distinction.
I expect the number of people who code for a living to drop
precipitously, and many many more people who don't think of themselves
as programmers to do more of what we call coding today. As part of
their living, but not primarily as programmers.
That's probably bad news for a lot of people currently calling
themselves programmers. It means that people who aren't deep into
programming will likely need to find other job titles.
It also means that people who are great at coding will need to drop the
attitude and accept that they only get to deal with particularly
difficult aspects of common problems. Their code will get used by
people who don't need to know the best practices of what's inside,
people who will cherry-pick the inputs and outputs of the black boxes
with whatever tools are conveniently at hand.
Industrial-age mechanics and patternmakers were rock stars too.
Programmers like to think that we're like the engineers, who carry on
whatever the tide of technology, but the reality is that most of us are
like mechanics and patternmakers, whose jobs were automated away as
quickly as possible. (Often with the cooperation of the mechanics and
patternmakers themselves, but that's another long story.)
> There has also been some research done which would suggest that it's
> got nothing to do having completed a formal Software Engineering or
> Computer Science degree.
>
> But again why let a bit of research get in the way of a story.
I agree completely - I wasn't the one who brought up the CS degree, if
you remember this thread...
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
