|
30 years ago, being a "programmer" could also mean you'd completed IBM's 6 week programmer course (no prior knowledge necessary). Workwise, programmers got a document describing the module they were to write and wrote it. Programmers didn't necessarily know anything about how the whole system worked or how all the modules fit together -- that was someone else's job.
After learning that, I stopped calling myself a programmer since that wasn't what I'd been trained to do nor the kinds of work I was interested in.
While I'm not big on titles, some organizations are, and it does matter when you're applying for a job. Someone calling themselves a programmer isn't likely to get the software architect job, even if they do have the skills and experience needed, because the organization will never bring them in to interview.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Sutton wrote: 30 years ago, there wasn't room for sh***y programmers
Really? What happened to all those sh***y programmers I encountered in the 60s? 
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
|
|
|
|
|
I was worked with some glass lickers who thought calling themselves Software Developers was the answer. They'd explain this by saying software developers went beyond programmers by: [list of tasks you do in programming]. I'd point out that's exactly what programmers do. They'd get angry. Loop.
|
|
|
|
|
Funnny. I had a similar experience. Then I trapped them with logic, thus: "If this sentence is not untrue, then I'm right and you're wrong" -- they didn't understand that, of course, and thus the pseudo-proof failed - but at the same time, by failing, validated itself. So then I followed the advice a colleague of mine gave me years ago: "Step away, and Feel Superior!"
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Sutton wrote: ... all over the place
Perception, perception, perception.
Most people that pay other people to work want people that can actually do the job. The verbiage doesn't have anything to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Having read the thread, I can now respond.
I am 51 and have been professionally employed designing and writing code since 1986.
Having said that:
Programmers are perceived as those that simply key in the code; they are not analysts
Analysts are perceived as those that can think through an issue; they don't necessarily write the code
Combintations of the two can think and code
Architects are so far above the analsyis and coding that they sometimes forget that a foundation must be built
And I expect a process to come crashing down in a few months because the solutions architects, application architects and data architects forgot to ask the people that actually support the underlying structure what simple level configuration is required (trusts, firewalls, application IDs... you know... the unimportant stuff).
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - that's about right... I've always thought of "programmer" as including "analyst", but I take your point: an external perception might ignore it. Of course, "Architect" means something only to "Architects"!
[Quote from somewhere]: If (structural) architects designed buildings the way programmers design software, then civilization as we know it would collapse overnight!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Sutton wrote: [Quote from somewhere]: If (structural) architects designed buildings the way programmers design software, then civilization as we know it would collapse overnight!
Variant:
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote software the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.
A positive attitude may not solve every problem, but it will annoy enough people to be worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
|
Luckily that kind of software is not used on import things. Just on normal business data processing or whatever they call it today.
|
|
|
|
|
Twenty three years ago when I got my first job as a COBOL programmer for Norwich Union - that is all I did. I was given a specification and I just programmed and tested to the specification.
We had business analysts, project managers and systems analysts.
Now I work as a developer, this means being a business analyst, project manager, systems analyst and coder.
That's why I don't call myself a programmer or coder as I help the business in its development of IT systems through business analysis, project management, systems analysis and programming.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Ah - interesting: so to you, there's no distinction between "programmer" and "coder"... I guess, to me, "programmer" evokes Dijkstra, you see -- whereas "coder" evokes nothing. So my "programmer" is your "developer". Semantics... semantics...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I prefer "Software Developer", in an all-inclusive "Software Development LifeCycle" kind of way -- I do it all, not just the coding part.
A shortcoming I see with the term "developer" is that there are Hollywood types who "develop" shows -- e.g. "we're developing a new show for NBC" -- but they don't seem to do any actual work, just schedule meetings etc., which really makes them more like project managers. 
The term "engineer" is inappropriate, because what we do isn't nearly that technical, and using that term in relation to software is probably demeaning to real engineers (like my father).
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny: I actually spent a while working with a real engineer... and he was much better at what he did than I could ever be, whereas he considered what I did to be far more complex than what he did, and to be magic -- so in reality, we had the same opinion about each other's occupations... thus, in reality, calling me an engineer would, in some way, be demeaning (or elevating, depending on who's looking) to both of us. There's an interesting dichotomy for you!
I think what we do is easily as technical as what engineers do, but in a very different way: I'd agree that "engineer" is a grossly inappropriate term for it.
Here in Hollywood (and yes, I am in Hollywood!), "programmer" is just as misunderstood as "developer" since it also has to do with TV schedules and so on... I think the trick there is to ignore Hollywood. I know I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Sutton wrote: has to do with TV schedules and so on
But isn't that done by a Program Director?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
I hope never to be completely sure...!
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is a definite move away from the words 'programmer' and 'programming'. My impression of the reason for that is not to hide what we do, but to make it clear that we don't only do programming – a developer or engineer role includes programming, but also design, UCD, planning, client interaction, requirements analysis, testing etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I think those two words have a lot in common, but are in no way equal. Being programmer is about creating programs - not necessarily by writing code. You can be a programmer and work with flowcharts (i.e. using Windows Workflow Foundation), but never touching the code itself. On the other side, coder is just writing code. It may be executable code (program, algorithm), but it also may be HTML or CSS, which are not programming languages.
|
|
|
|
|
The topic "DevOps" is hot on this issue now. You may want to look it up in some of the technology blogs and sites. It discusses your concern and related ones.
"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"
|
|
|
|
|
In some circles, they say scripting, in others hacking.
Sometimes it is so that they can ask you to do anything and you can't say "it is not my job because my job title is programmer". For instance designing - is that part of programming? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Developer or Engineer - that doesn't say whether you are an analyst, programmer, designer, architect etc. It is a title I've been using for the past 20 years. It is one title that fits everything, including moving chairs to get rooms ready for presentations, washing up after the guests have left, filling in shipping orders, packaging, cabling and even mentoring. It is anything required to train the staff, sell the product and get it out of the door.
Sometimes you get asked when you apply for a job - do you mind opening up machines and hacking together several non-working machines to make a working one if the job requires it? Some programmers will say no - their job is just programming or software development: such things are below them (yes there are snobs in this industry). Some will gladly do it because it is something different. Even hacking ice out of the fridge or working out why the toilet doesn't flush is fun for these guys.
|
|
|
|
|
I personally see it as rather a great title to be given. Programming is a skill that everyone should develop, but there's only a few that actually have fully developed in this art. Plus, there's going to be that one job where you have to know how to code. If you add that you are a coder because you have developed this skill, your work and life will be easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that from the point of view of programming being something you do as an extension to your job in order to handle certain problems you encounter? But what if your job is programming - in which case, programming is therefore an end in itself...? I think the verb "to code" (which I hate, from a purely grammatical standpoint) describes maybe 1/10 of what a programmer actually does...
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, I am a 'programmer' ... as in 'Person of Interest'; 'The Matrix' ...."
Be afraid; be vewwwy afwaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my take:
1. Programmer - A person who programs without necessarily any design or true full development experience.
2. Coder - One who codes. Everyone in this list is, or should be, a coder.
3. Developer - A person who codes, programs, and has some direct full life cycle development experience. Much more well rounded than just a programmer. You can ask this person to write a design specification and they will do it rather than say, "How do I do that?".
4. Engineer - What software developers should be but aren't. An engineer designs and builds things and have specific and special education and training about using and applying engineering principles. Virtually all software programmers and developers have no engineering experience whatsoever and it shows (badly).
5. Software Engineer - Typically and often used to designate an engineer who does software for embedded and special processors or hardware. Ask any recruiter and this is the definition that they use. Other companies use it differently. It really should be used to indicate any coder, programmer, developer who has software engineering experience. But when was the last time you heard about "engineering" software instead of "writing" it? We could really improve the profession here...
- Grant
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, there really isn't a good term for an all-round programmer. The phrase "Analyst/Programmer" almost gets it, but not really, and the others are woolly -- for example, "Developer" could mean anything the listener wants it to mean...
I think a good programmer must have at least a functional knowledge of engineering... and, by extension, of everything else: if you want to be able to write programs to do *anything*, then you need to understand *everything*...
|
|
|
|
|
http://xkcd.com/612/[^]
The link is copied from one of OriginalGriff's answers. One of the rare jokes on this page, which also a "not an initiate" understands 
N.B. It is worth to have a look to other jokes on that page *g*
idle63
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
