Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37891

Re: WHY

Show all headers | View raw

On 2017-12-19 20:17, Kiwi User wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:49:16 +0100, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> 
>> The natural language equivalent of a computer programmer is not the
>> translator.
>>
>> It's the philologist.
>>
> I disagree. In literary terms computer programmer much closer in function 
> to a novelist than a philologist.
> 
> A better match would be to say that the programming team of analyst + 
> programmer(s) is similar to a naval architect + shipyard because both 
> teams start with a requirement, design something to meet the requirement, 
> construct it and then deliver it to the client for trials followed by 
> productive use.

My emphasis wasn't on the programmer's actual act of production, but
rather on the prerequisites thereof, i.e. the structure of the knowledge
that goes into it.

Even so, I have to disagree right back with the novelist analogy. A good
novelist will perhaps have conscious knowledge of linguistic artifices,
but as far as the language itself is concerned, he will rather (I
reckon) have an intuitive, rather than an analytical, grasp of it; and
will be writing only in one. Not so the programmer; indeed, the latter
aspect was the very point Eric D. was making.

Definitions are a matter of gusto, of course, but to the extent that
philology is the study both of languages and of their usage, and as such
the study of human communication -- from a practical, rather than purely
abstract perspective -- it seems to me indeed much closer to our art.

At any rate, the point I was trying to make is that it is -- by far --
not enough to command different computer languages in order to be good
at programming, no more than knowing how to use a hammer, a saw, a
chisel, etc. is enough to be a good carpenter. Programming is about
communicating with computers, and requires understanding of how
computers work, separately from and in addition to knowing how to talk
to them. Indeed like the novelist who will need to understand the human
psyche, but unlike the novelist in that I doubt most of them will be
psychology majors, and that those who are will necessarily be the best
among them.

Knowing different ways to talk to computers can be helpful in
understanding computers, but is not the end of the story, nor even
strictly required. Imagine for instance trying to program without
understanding 2's complement representation. It doesn't matter how many
syntaxes or standard libraries you know, nor how well; if you don't
understand that, you're only gonna get so far.

-- 
DF.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 08:01 -0800
  Re: WHY Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-19 17:47 +0000
    Re: WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 10:28 -0800
      Re: WHY Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-19 19:49 +0100
        Re: WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 11:12 -0800
        Re: WHY Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-19 19:17 +0000
          Re: WHY Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-19 22:59 +0100
      Re: WHY Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-19 19:59 -0500
      Re: WHY Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-19 20:07 -0500
    Re: WHY Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-19 20:16 -0500
  Re: WHY Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-19 19:40 +0100
    Re: WHY Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-12-19 14:42 -0500
      Re: WHY lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-12-19 11:48 -0800
        Re: WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 12:49 -0800
          Re: WHY Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-19 22:57 +0000

csiph-web