|
Well said! I always laugh when I hear someone say that kids these days are... lazy, ignorant, have no taste in music/ clothes, etc.
I always like to add - “ ...said every person over 50 throughout the history of mankind. “
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Sokrates said: The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers
I guess he was over fifty then. 
|
|
|
|
|
This!
Also, not everything we liked as kids has aged well.
We make stuff a lot better in our heads than it was in reality.
And not all cartoons they make nowadays are garbage either.
Rick & Morty, Adventure Time, Gravity Falls, Steven Universe... 
|
|
|
|
|
Cartoons turned to cr@p in the 60s, when companies like Hanna-Barbera realised that they could charge just as much for cheap garbage as other companies were getting for doing the job properly. If it weren't for the occasional better-than-mediocre writing, HB would be the most prolific bad entertainment producer in history.
A good indicator of how it crumbled is in the long-running Tom & Jerry series. Early ones were a joy to behold, but they gradually declined until they hit the cartoon-decline equivalent of Hooke's Law, and immediately turned into garbage. And now they're CGI, produced by people with no art in their bones.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Cartoons in the fifties and before were made to be shown at cinemas.
From the sixties and onward they were mass produced for TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Unpopular opinion
A lot of coders spend a lot of lines of code dividing things into tiny steps which they then make whole classes for and abstract everything to the Nth degree, often even when the abstraction is not helpful.
Back when I was a green coder, I used to write OO code somewhat like this. Then C++ changed me. I stopped relying on objects so much. This bled over into other languages.
Now my code is about expedience. For example, I created a little HTTP server that does the request/response cycle in a single method, with two support structs instead of a dozen classes.
My code is smaller, faster, easy enough to understand if you aren't a beginner and overall better for it.
It's getting to the point where I think OO is an ill conceived paradigm - and not even because it's Broken As Designed (it's not) but because it gets way overused to the point where the dev world may have been better off with something else.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Like everything else involving programming, you use the right tool for the job. Fortunately, we can build our own tools for this job without needing special equipment or unreasonable amounts of electricity, and we don't leave a lot of wasted material laying around.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
But also, with the failure rate of software I'm glad we don't build bridges and skyscrapers. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: But also, with the failure rate of software I'm glad we don't build bridges and skyscrapers.
The % of "so-called" programmers is much, much, much bigger than the % of architechts.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
also CS is only somewhat engineering. It's half voodoo.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be so sure.
For one off my previous jobs I had to write a program that calculates the thickness (not sure if that's the word) for glass so that it could support a given weight.
When I asked the structural engineer about how to implement the formula for this, so a step by step calculation he replied: I have no idea I just enter the numbers in this program and it gives me the solution.
So this structural engineer was entirely counting on a programmer (who I hope was counting on a actual structural engineer) somewhere.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Jerks and morons are overall
But still, there is much more less prepared programmers than architechts. Alone due to college.
Note: And I am not saying that having a degree makes you automatically better professional, it is just about the numbers of people working in each field.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but all the same I'm staying away from glass buildings types in my area these days 
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
If I knew where a couple of classmates have been working I would avoid some products too 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Good thing you weren't in Boston when they were building the (then known as) John Hancock tower completed in 1976.
Entire 4′ x 11′, 500-lb windows were detaching and crashing down to the sidewalks hundreds of feet below. Police had to close off surrounding streets whenever winds reached 45 mph.
But I never wave bye bye
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: I have no idea I just enter the numbers in this program and it gives me the solution.
Reminds me of when I was considering drilling a ground heat well for a heat pump, and contacted a couple drilling companies. One of them had to know the exact area to have floor heating:
Well... in the first round it will be around 120 sq.m, but in a couple years, I will probably furnish two basement rooms, for another 40 sq.m.
"I need a single figure from you to calculate how deep the well should be, not two!"
The new rooms be coming, so let's say 160 sq.m. then, even though it will be less to begin with.
"But then you won't have a well of the correct depth."
Fine with me - it will be a little deeper than needed, but...
"Then we can take no responsibility for the dimensioning, if you do not give us the correct figures!"
I ended up dropping the idea of drilling a well altogether - under my house is more than 45 m of loose masses, which are quite expensive to "drill" (you need to reinforce the hole with solid pipes all the way down) - but if I had realized the idea, I certainly would not have used that company to do the drilling!
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'd be surprised at how many rely on Autocad to do their structural calculations for them.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew* one Mobile company who thought it would be a good idea to use Lotus Notes to manage their Telecom infrastructure.
*Deliberately using past tense here...
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
We had Lotus Notes here... I've never been so grateful to migrate to gmail.
|
|
|
|
|
I had similar experience early in my career and now have another.
I worked on a banking application where I needed to calculate APR (annual percentage rate). I asked several mortgage bankers how they do the calculation, not a one knew. Each stated the rate was on the docs they received from the intake clerk. I asked the clerk, she said she used her mortgage calculator, a hand held device.
Currently, I am investigating solar panels for my home. I have 4 companies responding each with proposing different configurations despite using the same utilization rates published by my electric provider.
Accuracy, it appears, is in the math of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
|
Software failure isn't caused by the tools or paradigms used to develop it - it's cased the the programmers not doing it right.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: it's caused by the the programmers not doing it right.
exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't intend to imply otherwise, despite the overarching topic. I switched gears.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I'm glad we don't build bridges and skyscrapers.
We've been building physical structures for thousands of years, and writing software for less than 80. Architecture and civil engineering are obviously more mature disciplines than software engineering. Assuming civilization survives, I am certain that our software development efforts will be viewed by future engineers in the same manner that the builders of mud huts are viewed by modern civil engineers.
(But we do build some very impressive mud huts!  )
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Software techniques will undoubtedly improve, but there are things from 45 years ago that I don't find primitive. I think software will always be difficult because, unlike engineers, we continually evolve existing products and, unlike mechanics, we repair them while they are up and running.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
