sergiy - 02 November 2016 08:31 AM
streaks_n_counts - 02 November 2016 05:34 AM
exactly…pro programmers are not players…they can’t even play for themselves for their benefit.—-they are scared to play.
lts not even that… pro programmer has terible life. They have to do tools for a occupation they do not understand! I faced many situations where l was working with very good programmers, at the end of the day, l was the one doing all debugging and testing. Programmer is like enterpreter ( translator)... they explain to the computer what their clients need. It’s like knowing another language. Programmer themselves can undersand nothing from the task, but with algorithm of the programme they can manage it somehow.
Funny thing is that to learn speaking with the programmer properly ( creating algorithm ) require more work then creating programme itself. As with everything , following rull holds ” true” universally :- ” if you want something done properly, do it yourself”.
As a retired IT professional I feel somewhat obligated to offer a defense. I progressed through the IT ranks from Programmer to Programmer/Analyst to Support Analyst. What you are describing can really be applied only to a programmer, one who translates the human language instructions into a language (e.g. COBOL, Fortran, C++, Assembler) that another program (called a compiler) written by the machine manufacturer (e.g. IBM, DEC, Unisys) translates into the 1’s and 0’s its machine understands. Once you add the term “analyst” to a job title the bearer of that title should attempt to understand not only what a user wants the program to do but also what the user is trying to accomplish. I took pride in being able to give users what they needed rather than just what they wanted.
Unfortunately, even at my highest level (Staff Support Analyst) I was not a substitute for the actual user when it came to final testing of my efforts. I know what I have to do to initiate an application, but that is not necessarily so for a secretary trainee tasked with using the application I developed. You say, “If you want something done properly, do it yourself,” but I would add, “... but if someone else is going to use your product you had better be there when that person tries to use it.” IOW to make something idiot-proof, give it to an idiot and watch them break it.
Back in the pre-Internet Dark Age I once tried to connect to a computer at one of my company’s field sites using pcAnywhere, a product that would allow me to connect to that computer via modem. (Later versions use the Internet.) The secretary at the site insisted her computer had a modem attached to it—I even had her check to make sure the cable was plugged into the machine—but every message I got told me that was not so.
Finally I asked, “Are there any lights on the modem?”
“Yes,” she replied.
“What lights are on?”
“PWR.”
Power, a good start I thought. “Any other lights on?”
“No.”
“No light labeled ‘MR’?!” (MR stands for Modem Ready.)
“No.”
“How about ‘AA’?” (AA stands for Auto Answer.)
“No.”
Suspicious that the modem was not really a modem I asked, “What about Form Feed?”
“Oh yes, but it’s not on.”
I had just spent an hour and a half trying to connect to a [expletive deleted] LOCAL PRINTER!”
I have every confidence that you both can tell the difference between a Big Wheel and a Roulette Wheel, but I am also confident there are a few people who cannot. Any guess as to what percentage of those are writing roulette software?
Craps Forum
