Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:19:04 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <8b262a1f-507f-ef10-e4d3-a981dca5b7d1@example.net> <655acbf6-05e5-69ff-8a44-9f7075aafa2e@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-1654280293-1739049545=:16712" Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3326774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:65284 comp.os.linux.advocacy:685395 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1654280293-1739049545=:16712 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sat, 8 Feb 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 08/02/2025 17:59, D wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 08/02/2025 07:36, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> IMHO, a lot of this is just "busy work" from >>>>    people looking for something to do. Their >>>>    idea of "better" means "better for ME - and >>>>    screw YOU". It's not better for the average, >>>>    or even professional, user. >>> >>> In my careers - I have had several - us Engineers were humble creatures >>> who wrote clean workmanlike well documented and tested code in the hope >>> that no one would ever have to write it again, and if they did, it would >>> be instantly understandable. Code was. to quote my friend 'Higgy',  'all >>> just bits, in silicon'. >>> >>> Later I encountered computer scientists who spoke a strange language with >>> artistic terms in it like 'elegance' 'intellectual purity' 'algorithmic >>> efficiency'  'Turing complete' 'object oriented' and other words that >>> seemed to have nothing whatever to do with actually writing testing and >>> debugging clean code that met the spec and worked in a timescale less than >>> eternity... >>> >>> I decided they were all frustrated ArtStudents™ with Physics envy who >>> could not  do HardSums™ >> >> Haha, brilliant! >> >>> And should never be let anywhere near a critical project. >> >> I am fascinated by the fact that when it comes to programming, there can be >> an enormous disconnect between academic programmers, and a guy in his room >> who just pounded out the code and got the work done. >> >> I'm not saying he did it in the most "elegant" way or the best documented >> way, but I do claim that in many instances, the guy without the official >> training is able to do it. >> >> Reminds me of when I went to university. I often had to help the A students >> with their practical assignments, and I got it done. On the theory part >> however, they were always the A students. > > There is computer science, and there is software engineering. > Textbooks on software engineering are worth reading I don't think I ever had the patience to become a professional programmer. When I graduated there was no market for programmers, so I ended up in infrastrucutre, or what the young whipper snappers now a days call "devops". My most powerful software was a multi-path checker to a storage system that held a lot of pension money. It was written in bash. =D Ok, ok... I wrote a GUI for some kind of batch job mgmt software that IBM hobbled together in order to trace dependencies, that was done in python. Apart from that, I don't think I ever did much programming that was not related to devops and getting servers to do their job and monitor them, and deploying them. --8323328-1654280293-1739049545=:16712--