Geez, this only got rated a "3" when it should be a 6!? As a long-time Perl teacher, my students are always coming back to me in awe and wonderment wondering why anyone with good Perl knowledge would use a language, PHP, which is "Severely Underpowered Perl for Dummies"??
I've been teaching Perl and Advanced Perl for 10 years and the whole PHP phenomenon mystifies me. I suspect that the prosaic truth is that a large proportion of PHP'ers are overwhelmed by Perl because they're not really adept programmers while accomplished Perl programmers just find PHP infuriatingly limiting.
Gee, let's keep creating dumbed down, "knock-off" languages so we can go lower and lower and lower on the IQ scale until people with an IQ of 80 can be "programmers".
Gawd, what a civilization. PDAs all went in the dumper as
people saw that they don't need to store thousands of factoids.
"Need", in the modern technological world, is manufactured.
I can program Perl and C fast as a banshee and I still keep
phone numbers on pieces of paper and have yet to lose a number
of real interest in my ENTIRE LIFE. The founders of cybernetics
are rolling over in their graves seeing this stupid profusion
of consumer electronics while industrial automation sucks.
I'm an avid classical music listener and have no interest or
"need" for an IPod. Why?? Because I don't need room for a
thousand CDs worth of music and if I put a thousand CDs worth
of music on an IPod I would do the same as I do with my CDs...
play the same damned ten or twelve over and over again.
Also, isn't music listening often a communal thing you want to
share... like on a conventional stereo in your living room with
friends present?? I know, it's an outdated notion and you geeks
think that a world with no human interaction at all, the Wired
view of life, is to be aspired after.
Thanks for the bravery you show in wanting to ralph all over the floor about Web 2.0. Tim O'Reilly's motivations are beginning to give me pause... just what are they besides cheap propaganda for his group of technical "obsesserati".
Can we deconstruct what Computer "Science" has become so it becomes what it set out to be in the 1960s. We could certainly do worse.
As a teacher who has taught thousands of programmers over a 27 year span, I can attest to a few truisms: 1) The number of good students as a percentage of each class is dropping alarmingly, 2) I see much less love of discipline than I saw prior to 2001, and 3) I see lots of signs of stress and overwork now.
My inferences?? The good developers are being worked long hours to make product. Industry does give a s**t about academic CS'ers... they just want "skillsets"... however misguided that may be (and I believe it is). Few have time for classes. Enrollment is down 80%.
Whatever any of you believe about the job market for programmers, it is either nonsense or the nature of the jobs is so onerous that most people find the field tedious. Indeed, the latter is even true for me BECAUSE most companies want code monkeys, not thinkers. And I hate training code monkeys when, from 1979 to 1999, I actually had at least three times more real thinkers in the room.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, this only got rated a "3" when it should be a 6!?
As a long-time Perl teacher, my students are always coming
back to me in awe and wonderment wondering why anyone with
good Perl knowledge would use a language, PHP, which is
"Severely Underpowered Perl for Dummies"??
I've been teaching Perl and Advanced Perl for 10 years and
the whole PHP phenomenon mystifies me. I suspect that the
prosaic truth is that a large proportion of PHP'ers are
overwhelmed by Perl because they're not really adept
programmers while accomplished Perl programmers just find
PHP infuriatingly limiting.
Gee, let's keep creating dumbed down, "knock-off" languages
so we can go lower and lower and lower on the IQ scale until
people with an IQ of 80 can be "programmers".
Gawd, what a civilization. PDAs all went in the dumper as people saw that they don't need to store thousands of factoids. "Need", in the modern technological world, is manufactured. I can program Perl and C fast as a banshee and I still keep phone numbers on pieces of paper and have yet to lose a number of real interest in my ENTIRE LIFE. The founders of cybernetics are rolling over in their graves seeing this stupid profusion of consumer electronics while industrial automation sucks. I'm an avid classical music listener and have no interest or "need" for an IPod. Why?? Because I don't need room for a thousand CDs worth of music and if I put a thousand CDs worth of music on an IPod I would do the same as I do with my CDs ...
play the same damned ten or twelve over and over again.
Also, isn't music listening often a communal thing you want to
share ... like on a conventional stereo in your living room with
friends present?? I know, it's an outdated notion and you geeks
think that a world with no human interaction at all, the Wired
view of life, is to be aspired after.
Thanks for the bravery you show in wanting to ralph all over
the floor about Web 2.0. Tim O'Reilly's motivations are
beginning to give me pause
cheap propaganda for his group of technical "obsesserati".
Can we deconstruct what Computer "Science" has become so it
becomes what it set out to be in the 1960s. We could certainly
do worse.
Dr. Dysphoria
As a teacher who has taught thousands of programmers
over a 27 year span, I can attest to a few truisms:
1) The number of good students as a percentage of each
class is dropping alarmingly, 2) I see much less love
of discipline than I saw prior to 2001, and 3) I see
lots of signs of stress and overwork now.
My inferences?? The good developers are being worked
long hours to make product. Industry does give a s**t
about academic CS'ers
however misguided that may be (and I believe it is).
Few have time for classes. Enrollment is down 80%.
Whatever any of you believe about the job market for
programmers, it is either nonsense or the nature of
the jobs is so onerous that most people find the field
tedious. Indeed, the latter is even true for me
BECAUSE most companies want code monkeys, not thinkers.
And I hate training code monkeys when, from 1979 to
1999, I actually had at least three times more real
thinkers in the room.