I keep getting a notice that cc expired in 1970??????

[deesy58]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

You make an excellent point.  It is the reason why it is so important to be as precise as possible when communicating formally, in writing.  The Twitter Generation is, IMO, generally unaware of this importance, but we have no excuse on a forum like this where we can proof-read our posts before submitting them. If we can't express our ideas clearly, then how can we expect others to understand our words, especially when they have no audible or visual cues to assist them?

---

Just a friendly reminder, this thread is open to everyone, not just those over 50 or those who choose to participate.

---

Hmm.  Pardon me, keriflur, but could you elaborate?  What is it about my words that you believe are exclusionary to those over the age of 50, or to those who choose not to participate?  Apparently, I missed something. 

Am I mistaken that this thread, and every other thread on the B&N Book Clubs fora are open to everybody?  I certainly do not participate in all of the discussion threads, and I do not feel any particular compulsion to do so.  On the other hand, I do not begrudge posters the right to discuss any topic that they might like on the forum.  Is that a mistaken position?  Just wondering. 

---

As I said, just a friendly reminder.  The core posters in this thread remember coding in the 70's and 80's, and it makes it easy to forget that the "Twitter Generation" might be reading your comments too, and might feel a bit offended that you believe they don't value exactitude in communication.

I've seen plenty of people get themselves into unintended hot water and/or arguments by offending people they didn't realize were seeing their statements.  That is all.

---

Well, since I did not identify what (exactly) I meant by "The Twitter Generation,' perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that somebody might take offense.

Allow me to elaborate.  I meant the people who are not able to cogently compose a sentence or a paragraph because their primary means of communication is text messages and 140-character tweets.  Limit any system of communications as severely as these two methods and the result will, almost certainly, be frequent miscommunication.  There is little of that on this forum, but that is not the case on many of the other fora in which I participate, and it is depressing to learn how many people today are unable to express their ideas in a manner that can be understood by others. 

It still is not clear to me what you are referring to when you specify "core posters" and remembering "coding in the 70's and 80's ..."  At least four us us who are posting in this thread have claimed to have made their living (now or in the past) by writing computer programs.  Obviously, we have had different experiences.  At least two of us have worked in large (or large-ish) production shops with teams of programmers working on substantial projects.  We have avoided casting aspersions on the methods and practices of other programmers, or on the specific programming languages being used. 

Not so with at least one other poster who makes sweeping generalizations about issues with which he seems to have little familiarity. 

If I have offended you, I certainly wish to apologize, because that was certainly not my intention.  However, I am mystified regarding how any of my words could possibly be found offensive to you.  Are you a believer in the theory that COBOL programmers are/were lazy or morons?   Do you violently disagree that COBOL was (to a great extent) a self-documenting language?  If not, what did you find offensive?  My use of any words that might be considered offensive were, I believe, quotations. 

[keriflur]

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

Fred011 wrote:

Your comment was "The average programmer today thinks his/her primary goal is to write code that works, whereas the goal should be to write code that is maintainable (and by inference, extensible)." [Emphasis mine]

I still contend that the PRIMARY GOAL should be software that works.  Your examples represent software that was not properly tested, or might have actually encountered environmental changes not specified in the original performance specifications.

If the "key click" feature you mention doesn't "pass the smell test" and misses a full 20% of it's required performance specification, the software was not properly tested and should never have have been released.  What you have presented is a case of non-efficacious testing before production release. This reflects more on the organization than on the programmer or his/her code. Where I worked, it wasn't in the programmer's mind that software was objectively evaluated but in a rigorous testing process.

The same could be said of the CC code.

So according to you, it is more important that the code can be fixed later, and "maintained" than  performing properly.  So perhaps the "key click" and CC code are qualifiers for your approval: they aren't working, but that is not their primary function as long as they can be maintained.  If they keep the same code, no matter how poorly it performs, it's good to go in your book.

---

I don't want to speak for Dean, but I've seen some seriously poorly structured code, where the programmer didn't bother with any standard conventions of formatting, didn't provide any notes on what variables are meant to represent, etc.  The code works, but no one but that programmer can update it because it looks like gibberish (well, okay, someone *could* update it, but it would take them longer to figure out what was happening than to rewrite the code).  This is what I took Dean's statement to mean.

A lot of programmers are self-taught (myself included, tho I only write what I consider light code - VBA, HTML, CSS), they've learned because their job demanded it, and a lot don't bother to learn how to structure their code.  A lot of them don't bother to notate their code at all.  It creates quite a headache for those that come along afterward and have to clean up the mess.

---

What you say might be correct, keriflur, but don't you believe that there is a HUGE difference between writing a simple program for occasional use by one or two users and working as a professional programmer in a large production shop that produces stable code that will be executed a countless number of times by hundreds (or even thousands) of users over a period of years? 

It is usually dangerous to paint with a broad brush and to generalize from a single (or very few) example(s).  To say that an entire class of professionals is lazy because one saw a specific example one time is just not an example of logical reasoning.  How do such unsupported assertions contribute to the discourse on this, or any, forum?

---

And here again, our imprecise language and precise use of words fail us.

I never said that I saw a specific example one time.  In fact, I never specified at all.  As you may recall, while I don't specifically code for a large production shop, I work in the project realm and have worked on many software projects.  This means that I've worked with a number of programmers and have seen a lot of code (not just the code I personally write).  I've listened to quite a few (note that a few is more than one, and quite a few is more than a very few) of them complain about the programmer that came before them and their inability to use basic formatting or to notate their code.  I've also seen it in the smaller projects that I've worked on where I'm directly coding.

Nowhere did I indicate that the cases I've seen or talked with others about were NOT for large production.  In fact,some of them were.  You've made assumptions that are incorrect.  We all know what happens when we assume, do we not?

I also used the term "a lot" which is imprecise.  Sometimes people choose imprecise words deliberately because they don't want to make an assertation that is incorrect.  I have not counted the programmers I've worked with, nor have I asked each and every one of them where they learned to code.  But I can tell you that of the professional programmers I've worked with, I know more that are self-taught than have degrees in computer science, and of those that have degrees, quite a few were (at the time I worked with them) not coding the languages they studied in college.  And, of course, I know a lot programmers that I have not worked with directly, but I don't know all programmers and haven't conducted a survey, so it would be inappropriate for me to be more specific than "a lot", would it not?

If you'd prefer more data, let's open the question to the group:

For everyone here that's worked with programmers, would you say that a lot of them don't follow format conventions and/or don't notate their code as well as they should?  Also, what's your definition of "a lot"?

If you feel that what I said has no value to the conversation, then you don't really need to bother with it, do you?  But FWIW, I was not disagreeing with you in any of my statements in this thread, so why the attack?

[keriflur]

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

You make an excellent point.  It is the reason why it is so important to be as precise as possible when communicating formally, in writing.  The Twitter Generation is, IMO, generally unaware of this importance, but we have no excuse on a forum like this where we can proof-read our posts before submitting them. If we can't express our ideas clearly, then how can we expect others to understand our words, especially when they have no audible or visual cues to assist them?

---

Just a friendly reminder, this thread is open to everyone, not just those over 50 or those who choose to participate.

---

Hmm.  Pardon me, keriflur, but could you elaborate?  What is it about my words that you believe are exclusionary to those over the age of 50, or to those who choose not to participate?  Apparently, I missed something. 

Am I mistaken that this thread, and every other thread on the B&N Book Clubs fora are open to everybody?  I certainly do not participate in all of the discussion threads, and I do not feel any particular compulsion to do so.  On the other hand, I do not begrudge posters the right to discuss any topic that they might like on the forum.  Is that a mistaken position?  Just wondering. 

---

As I said, just a friendly reminder.  The core posters in this thread remember coding in the 70's and 80's, and it makes it easy to forget that the "Twitter Generation" might be reading your comments too, and might feel a bit offended that you believe they don't value exactitude in communication.

I've seen plenty of people get themselves into unintended hot water and/or arguments by offending people they didn't realize were seeing their statements.  That is all.

---

Well, since I did not identify what (exactly) I meant by "The Twitter Generation,' perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that somebody might take offense.

Allow me to elaborate.  I meant the people who are not able to cogently compose a sentence or a paragraph because their primary means of communication is text messages and 140-character tweets.  Limit any system of communications as severely as these two methods and the result will, almost certainly, be frequent miscommunication.  There is little of that on this forum, but that is not the case on many of the other fora in which I participate, and it is depressing to learn how many people today are unable to express their ideas in a manner that can be understood by others. 

It still is not clear to me what you are referring to when you specify "core posters" and remembering "coding in the 70's and 80's ..."  At least four us us who are posting in this thread have claimed to have made their living (now or in the past) by writing computer programs.  Obviously, we have had different experiences.  At least two of us have worked in large (or large-ish) production shops with teams of programmers working on substantial projects.  We have avoided casting aspersions on the methods and practices of other programmers, or on the specific programming languages being used. 

Not so with at least one other poster who makes sweeping generalizations about issues with which he seems to have little familiarity. 

If I have offended you, I certainly wish to apologize, because that was certainly not my intention.  However, I am mystified regarding how any of my words could possibly be found offensive to you.  Are you a believer in the theory that COBOL programmers are/were lazy or morons?   Do you violently disagree that COBOL was (to a great extent) a self-documenting language?  If not, what did you find offensive?  My use of any words that might be considered offensive were, I believe, quotations. 

---

Nope, you haven't offended me, with the exception of the post above this one (in which I specify how you have offended me).  I have no opinion on COBOL programmers whatsoever, or on the COBOL language.  I was born in the 70's and by the time I was in college C++ was the language everyone was studying. 

"The core posters in this thread remember coding in the 70's and 80's" = If you remember coding in the 70's you were probably born earlier than 1965 (and even then you'd be kind of a prodigy).  This means that most of you are likely close to or exceeding the age of 50, and would not fall into the category of "Twitter Generation" even without the more precise definition that you've given above.

[MacMcK1957]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

Some stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Seriously?????????

[keriflur]

---

MacMcK1957 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

Some stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Having an irrelevant opinion also.

---

Seriously?????????

[Sun_Cat]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

MacMcK1957 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

Some stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Having an irrelevant opinion also.

---

Seriously?????????

---

I'm going for the nesting record. Do I win?

[keriflur]

---

Sun_Cat wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

MacMcK1957 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

Some stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Some more stuff

---

Having an irrelevant opinion also.

---

Seriously?????????

---

I'm going for the nesting record. Do I win?

---

Not yet.    Keep going. 

[Sun_Cat]

That's okay. I yield to you.

[keriflur]

---

Sun_Cat wrote:

That's okay. I yield to you.

---

Aw, that's no fun. 

[deesy58]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

deesy58 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

Fred011 wrote:

Your comment was "The average programmer today thinks his/her primary goal is to write code that works, whereas the goal should be to write code that is maintainable (and by inference, extensible)." [Emphasis mine]

I still contend that the PRIMARY GOAL should be software that works.  Your examples represent software that was not properly tested, or might have actually encountered environmental changes not specified in the original performance specifications.

If the "key click" feature you mention doesn't "pass the smell test" and misses a full 20% of it's required performance specification, the software was not properly tested and should never have have been released.  What you have presented is a case of non-efficacious testing before production release. This reflects more on the organization than on the programmer or his/her code. Where I worked, it wasn't in the programmer's mind that software was objectively evaluated but in a rigorous testing process.

The same could be said of the CC code.

So according to you, it is more important that the code can be fixed later, and "maintained" than  performing properly.  So perhaps the "key click" and CC code are qualifiers for your approval: they aren't working, but that is not their primary function as long as they can be maintained.  If they keep the same code, no matter how poorly it performs, it's good to go in your book.

---

I don't want to speak for Dean, but I've seen some seriously poorly structured code, where the programmer didn't bother with any standard conventions of formatting, didn't provide any notes on what variables are meant to represent, etc.  The code works, but no one but that programmer can update it because it looks like gibberish (well, okay, someone *could* update it, but it would take them longer to figure out what was happening than to rewrite the code).  This is what I took Dean's statement to mean.

A lot of programmers are self-taught (myself included, tho I only write what I consider light code - VBA, HTML, CSS), they've learned because their job demanded it, and a lot don't bother to learn how to structure their code.  A lot of them don't bother to notate their code at all.  It creates quite a headache for those that come along afterward and have to clean up the mess.

---

What you say might be correct, keriflur, but don't you believe that there is a HUGE difference between writing a simple program for occasional use by one or two users and working as a professional programmer in a large production shop that produces stable code that will be executed a countless number of times by hundreds (or even thousands) of users over a period of years? 

It is usually dangerous to paint with a broad brush and to generalize from a single (or very few) example(s).  To say that an entire class of professionals is lazy because one saw a specific example one time is just not an example of logical reasoning.  How do such unsupported assertions contribute to the discourse on this, or any, forum?

---

And here again, our imprecise language and precise use of words fail us.

I never said that I saw a specific example one time.  In fact, I never specified at all.  As you may recall, while I don't specifically code for a large production shop, I work in the project realm and have worked on many software projects.  This means that I've worked with a number of programmers and have seen a lot of code (not just the code I personally write).  I've listened to quite a few (note that a few is more than one, and quite a few is more than a very few) of them complain about the programmer that came before them and their inability to use basic formatting or to notate their code.  I've also seen it in the smaller projects that I've worked on where I'm directly coding.

Nowhere did I indicate that the cases I've seen or talked with others about were NOT for large production.  In fact,some of them were.  You've made assumptions that are incorrect.  We all know what happens when we assume, do we not?

I also used the term "a lot" which is imprecise.  Sometimes people choose imprecise words deliberately because they don't want to make an assertation that is incorrect.  I have not counted the programmers I've worked with, nor have I asked each and every one of them where they learned to code.  But I can tell you that of the professional programmers I've worked with, I know more that are self-taught than have degrees in computer science, and of those that have degrees, quite a few were (at the time I worked with them) not coding the languages they studied in college.  And, of course, I know a lot programmers that I have not worked with directly, but I don't know all programmers and haven't conducted a survey, so it would be inappropriate for me to be more specific than "a lot", would it not?

If you'd prefer more data, let's open the question to the group:

For everyone here that's worked with programmers, would you say that a lot of them don't follow format conventions and/or don't notate their code as well as they should?  Also, what's your definition of "a lot"?

If you feel that what I said has no value to the conversation, then you don't really need to bother with it, do you?  But FWIW, I was not disagreeing with you in any of my statements in this thread, so why the attack?

---

Whoa, whoa!  Let's not get too defensive, here.  I don't believe that I ever asserted that you "saw a specific example one time."  It was you who mentioned VBA, HTML and CSS, and these languages are, typically, not used in the type of production environment where COBOL was often used.  It appears to me that you are using a "fallacy of hasty generalization" -- Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It makes little difference how many readers of these posts might have seen a sloppily-written program at some time in their lives.  That, alone is insuffucuent to justify the allegation that a relatively substantial of professional computer programmers are guilty of laziness, or might be morons. 

It is not clear what your motive might be for jumping into the middle of this debate with an insertion of false logic and a defensive posture.  I did not attack you.  I pointed out that, unless you have specific experience in a large, production programming shop, you might not have encountered the professional standards and procedures that are usually to be found in such places. 

Taking a poll of participants in this forum will not provide an especially compelling case for the point you are apparently attempting to make.  In any event, even if you did, it would result in another logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so. 

I'm sorry.  (Have you thought about performing a little research?)