In one sense, yes, programmers are getting lazy. We general don''t need to know IRQ, DMA and BIOS calls.... ok, stimarco says most of it already.

Programming isn''t just math. It requires you to think of an suitable abstraction of problems... and implement it in the most efficient manner.

Programmers aren''t getting lazy because we don''t know that, we just aren''t required to know those things for what most people are programming.

As an undergrad, I was definitely a lazy programmer. I relied heavily on my classmates (and they on me) to understand some of my programming assignments. I rarely read the textbooks, since it was covered in lecture, and I could look up whatever in the MSDN index if I had trouble. All my classes used C++, so I am cursed (or blessed) with thinking in terms of C++ whenever a programming problem is presented to me. The hardest thing for me to learn was the debugger. Once I learned that, all my troubles went away ans I was able to stumble through my programming assignments. For the classes where I didn''t use C++, as soon as I learned to debug my programs, the assignments flowed. I don''t think this method of learning to program is (was) a good method, though debugging is a very important skill.

When I graduated, I had an overwhelming sense that I had a useless piece of paper and that I had squandered my time in spite of graduating first in my department. So now I am back in school as a graduate student, and taking my studies much more seriously. I have observed that my experience is not much different from others at my school.

Anyway, I am off topic (I used to be a Math/English double major so I babble when I write). My point is yes programmers are lazy. I was taught to be as lazy as possible in programming. If I can do a function in l line rather than 3, then use 1 (if only I could do this when I write). The trouble is, when this attitude is extended into life and study habits, young computer scientists can become lazy. Efficiency isn''t lazy, but when it is easier to ask for help than look for it in a book, people do that. Not all, but most for those who hate generalizations.

I must say, programming is easy. If I can do it, anyone can do it. I know there are high school aged kids that subscribe to this site that have written more lines of code than I have. That alone is evidence that programming doesn''t require a great math background. Programming is LOGIC! Kids learn logic when they are 6. They learn it in a formal way in 9th or 10th grade in geometry class. ANYONE CAN PROGRAM! Good programming and design comes with experience and practice. My two cents. Probably worthless hehe.


"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

the first time i''ve heard about computers was when i watched startrek and such stuff. those days i''ve "met" the computer as something that makes your live easy. solving stuff for you.

today, even as a programmer, i can understand every user comming to a pc, and just want-the-pc to do the stuff for him. at least, thats why we invented pc''s. and i fully support them. and between a full hw programmer with asm and all the interrupts and all the shit, and the user, who just wants to have the pc to do everything for him (thats what we payed those thousands of $ at least for that piece of ****:D), there is everything between. so, as well, for programming. not everyone wants to build up the pc by its own hands as well. and today, i don''t know anyone who wants to mess around with jumpers, irq settings, and much more complicated stuff anymore. components that simply work are on the move, and it makes sence. same in programming. libraries that work are on the move, and it makes sence. a todays full 3d game cannot be done in one single piece. but for example a physics engine can. a graphics engine can, other stuff an os can (wich is build by individual components as well). and there have to be the ones using those individual tools, pulling them together to realise great thoughts. those are often people with ideas, but not low-level knowledge. thats where highlevel languages fit in then, making it possible for them to use simple language and those lowlevel developed libraries to fit everything together, to realise its ideas.

not everyone wants to program. but anyone wants to make something. today there is a huge difference in what programming is. from simple .bat files to full os-coders. all are essentially programmers, they build up an automatic running thing. a program.

"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com

Man, I used to feel so good about my programming skills. but now I know that I am just someones lazy, drunk cousin with 6th grade math and slight logical ability. There''s an uplifting thought. (jk)

heh yea, no kidding. I feel st00pid alot of times even though i have done some pretty cool things in my programming career. The way i see logic etc, is the more logical you are, the faster you learn. I remember when i first started, i didnt want to copy any books code, i wanted to memorize it all before i moved on(andre lamothe windows prog. gurus) Id memorize 300 lines of code, and for what? I had already forgotten it all by the end of the week. And i learned not more than 2 months ago that one is supposed to understand things, and they dont have to memorize everything. Let me make my point now My point is what would you as a game programmer care more about, making the best game ever made, or programming an entire ok game in assembly? Depends from persoon to person, but i can tell you what the user would want. Obviously the better game. So we as game programmers would do our jobs better if we were able to focus more on game development then getting smooth scrolling to work, etc. I have always thought that someday, there will be no programmers, and everything will be so fast, that there will be a tool for everything. Like making a 3d game in a few clicks, etc. All i can say is if this day comes, then there will be far better games, because people will be able to focus all on game play.

Ok, i didn''t read all the post, but my points are:

1. In today market, companies seek for good specialists. So, if you want to reinvent the wheel, it better be rounder, and softer and stronger, than the already existing ones. There is no need to make an architeture, an operational system, grafic library, new engine and new game if it''s not going to be better than already existing ones (that you can freely use for your project).
IBM made pc, Gates made windows(or basically stole it from mac hehehe) and Carmack made Doom. The only lazy one is Gates if he really stoles its idea from Mac.lol

2. Programming IS Math(99%) and linguist(1%, because language you use, prolly 3% if you are going DX lol ) if you feel that logic is a branch of math(there is a lot of dicussion about it). If you go to a really good university of computer science/engineering they will teach you algoriths in Math way before going pseudo or C(++). Actually lot''s of people drops cs because of lots of "math modelling" involved in it. And no, 8th grade math isn''t enough.(not to solve 1000x1000 linear systems in 20 seconds or less, envolved in a lot of fluid mechanical simulations). If you are going to computer science just to code, forget it.

3. Hacking is different from Coding. You dont need to know that human brain can''t live withouth proper oxygen for 3-4 minutes, to shoot and kill someone. And the purpose are different. But coding helps it sometimes, again there is no need to reinvent the gun(if you are not going to make a cheaper and better).

4. There are posers everywhere, so in the coding comunity. People who like to flame naive beginners shows it(and their "oh my god, you are so inferior that it hurts my brain" skill).

5. Lots of people today goes to computers and coding because of the money involved in it, not because of the fun. And someone of them succede because they can cope with learning not-fun things, while some can''t. Regarding #1, some people like to reinvent the wheel for fun, and others have fun in seen good working results(avoiding reinvent the wheel).

[sarcasm]
5.Thank god, there are script kiddies. That way, SA can fix things before "real hackers" do greater damage.
[/sarcasm]

quote: Original post by guitarplayer
Ok, i didn''t read all the post, but my points are:

2. Programming IS Math(99%) and linguist(1%, because language you use, prolly 3% if you are going DX lol ) if you feel that logic is a branch of math(there is a lot of dicussion about it). If you go to a really good university of computer science/engineering they will teach you algoriths in Math way before going pseudo or C(++). Actually lot''s of people drops cs because of lots of "math modelling" involved in it. And no, 8th grade math isn''t enough.(not to solve 1000x1000 linear systems in 20 seconds or less, envolved in a lot of fluid mechanical simulations). If you are going to computer science just to code, forget it.

I think you''re wrong. It''s almost 0% math, and even less logic. Most programmers are dealing with problems that are neither mathmatical or logical in nature-- they are pure words puzzels without rhyme or reason.

As an example:
Microsoft says: You need an HMAGICAL_OBJECT to write to the screen. You then ask "Whats an HMAGICAL_OBJECT?" and spend the next 2 hours trying to find out. That doesn''t sound much like a math or logic problem to me.

Secondly, how many programmers are trying to solve complex physics problems at their work? Give me a break. Most programmers are doing really small jobs that are insanely boring.

Thirdly: CS is a big scam-- I don''t blame people for dropping it. It''s a real waste of time and money for anybody not seriously interested in their PhD. Most people go to Univeristy CS to get a job. A technical school is really better suited to their needs, but the poor students get brain washed in to thinking that you need to be ''smart ''n edumecated'' in order to be a programator.

For all of you kiddies out there who want to know what it''s like working as a programmer, please read the following made up ''scared-straight'' programmers conversation:

---
Manager says: "Uhh, Joe, the list that Robs getting from the X500 dir is just too, erm, messy. The customers won''t like it. Heck, screw the customers, I dont like it. Could you, uhh, add an extra space bettwen their first and last name of the recipient. Ohh yeah, this needs to be done as we''re getting the data off of the server, you know, in the stream. But be careful, crossing your streams will cause this whole office to explode".

You say: "But thats IMPOSSIBLE! The HMAGICAL_RECIPIENTRECORD cant store that much data. AND NOT EVERY RECIPEINT HAS A FIRST AND LAST NAME!!! Don''t you remember our 3 hour meeting about this from last week?? You, good sir, are a moron!"

Manager Says: "Well, uhm, cant you just change the HMAGICAL_RECIPIENTRECORD?"

You say: "Well, yeah...<huff, huff>."

Manager Says: "Well thats just excellent. Great work!"

3 months later.

Rob, who works on another section of code, comes charging out of his office.

Rob says "WHO THE HELL CHANGED THE HMAGICAL_RECIPEINTRECORD!! EVERYTHING IS BROKEN!! You, good sirs, are all morons."

---

Be cool, stay in school.

>Most programmers are dealing with problems that are neither
>mathmatical or logical in nature-- they are pure words puzzels
>without rhyme or reason.
> . . .
> "WHO THE HELL CHANGED THE HMAGICAL_RECIPEINTRECORD!!"

Wow, you must work for a bank or some other corporate IT hellhole. Corporate IT is held together by two fundamental lies:
1 - IT works with advanced technology and innovates. In reality, IT programmers are largely dumb, led by the even dumber, repeatedly solving the same fundamental problem slowly and inefficiently. You seem to have realized this. Congratulations. I realized this years ago and got out.
2 - The IT experience is the whole of the computing experience. This, also, couldn''t be farther from the truth, but you don''t seem to have realized it. Most production code is real-time embedded software written in assembly. Seriously, the guy writing software controlling the operation of an M1A1 Abrams tank is probably not going to relate to your experience writing million-line multi-server buzzword-compliant bloatware replacement of a dumb terminal.

IT is a big slice of the pie, but I don''t think it''s big enough to earn usage of the word ''most.'' In conclusion, go away, ya jaded, talentless troll

quote:
Wow, you must work for a bank or some other corporate IT hellhole. Corporate IT is held together by two fundamental lies:
1 - IT works with advanced technology and innovates. In reality, IT programmers are largely dumb, led by the even dumber, repeatedly solving the same fundamental problem slowly and inefficiently. You seem to have realized this. Congratulations. I realized this years ago and got out.
2 - The IT experience is the whole of the computing experience. This, also, couldn''t be farther from the truth, but you don''t seem to have realized it. Most production code is real-time embedded software written in assembly. Seriously, the guy writing software controlling the operation of an M1A1 Abrams tank is probably not going to relate to your experience writing million-line multi-server buzzword-compliant bloatware replacement of a dumb terminal.

IT is a big slice of the pie, but I don''t think it''s big enough to earn usage of the word ''most.'' In conclusion, go away, ya jaded, talentless troll

This I agree with, mostly. First, IT programmers are not stupid. You are though if that''s what you really believe. I do agree with you on every other opinion you have though.

Congrats on leaving the IT mess years ago. Your comment about the realtime embedded is totally untrue when it comes to buzz-words. I''ve worked on realtime embedded projects, and they''re full of buzzwords too. The word ''realtime'' is a buzzword. Ask three ''realtime'' companies what realtime means and you''ll get three different answers. Remember all the hoopla when MS relesed windows CE and called it ''realtime''? I do, and it''s no different than the other buzzwords / fad-of-the-month stuff that goes on.

Defence (and most Government) projects can be even more tedious than private sector. Their insane levels of quality control can result in situations like this:

John Doe works for a company as a programmer. Said company uses a programmer that reports the number of ''new lines of code'' John Doe writes to his manager. One day, John cleans up the code, resulting in him removing over 100 lines of useless junk. At the end of the month, John Does boss goes balistic on him because his ''monthly output'' is at 2 lines of code this month.

Aside from this, I don''t see how working on a project that uses a camera to visually inspect pills for quality control is any more exciting than writing the boot-up sequence for a highpower chain of generators, managing the realtime price adjustments for POS systems in a grocery store, or coding a database application for a large multinational. It''s all mostly blah, like any job that you stick with long enough, and usually your just a small part of a larger whole.

I''m not saying that there are NO exciting programming jobs, or NO brilliant people out there. I am saying:

For MOST people getting in to computer programming, you don''t need to worry about being a genius, knowing what a metric tensor is, or knowing the difference between POSIX and NTFS.

So thats that. I''m not trolling, I think that I''m right, many people agree with me, and if this bothers you maybe you should ask yourself why.

Dont eat too much or you''ll get fat.