Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

51 Replies - 5756 Views - Last Post: 08 October 2012 - 07:31 PM

#16 Skaggles  Icon User is offline

  • THE PEN IS MIGHTIER
  • member icon





Reputation: 251
  • View blog
  • Posts: 640
  • Joined: 01-March 09

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:53 AM

*
POPULAR

Posted Image
Was This Post Helpful? 14
  • +
  • -

#17 pokiaka  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 10
  • View blog
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 05-August 11

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 16 September 2012 - 01:00 PM

While I can't agree that we should start again from scratch without advancing etc. I did read in Jeff Duntemann's assembly book that we've gotten lazy and spoiled with memory and whatnot, and in the time that programmers didn't have much memory and a super-CPU (as we have these days) to work with they built up a very efficient character.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#18 Lemur  Icon User is offline

  • Pragmatism over Dogma
  • member icon


Reputation: 1383
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 28-November 09

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:15 PM

*
POPULAR

Hipster programmer strikes again?

Posted Image

...always relevant.
Was This Post Helpful? 8
  • +
  • -

#19 cfoley  Icon User is offline

  • Cabbage
  • member icon

Reputation: 2069
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,307
  • Joined: 11-December 07

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:28 AM

View Postpokiaka, on 16 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

While I can't agree that we should start again from scratch without advancing etc. I did read in Jeff Duntemann's assembly book that we've gotten lazy and spoiled with memory and whatnot, and in the time that programmers didn't have much memory and a super-CPU (as we have these days) to work with they built up a very efficient character.


It's all relative. We get taught about the classic time v space trade off. Really, it's a three-way trade off: cpu time, memory and development time. The first two have got a lot cheaper and readily available so it' natural that the development time becomes the limiting factor. It's almost always better to code something that is easy to write and easy to maintain than to spend ages crafting a superior solution.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#20 DarenR  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover

Reputation: 497
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,315
  • Joined: 12-January 10

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:32 AM

I was the last true inventor of all things techincal... I mean back in the day when I created H.A.L. and flew in space everyone loved me. Now not so much.....damn it wait that was a movie...
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#21 CTphpnwb  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 3100
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,889
  • Joined: 08-August 08

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:50 AM

View Postpokiaka, on 16 September 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

While I can't agree that we should start again from scratch without advancing etc. I did read in Jeff Duntemann's assembly book that we've gotten lazy and spoiled with memory and whatnot, and in the time that programmers didn't have much memory and a super-CPU (as we have these days) to work with they built up a very efficient character.

They also did some really stupid things, like using two characters for the year instead of four. That cost businesses and individuals billions of dollars and millions of lost man hours to fix. In some cases, those same programers came up with "fixes" that are only temporary and will cause problems ten, twenty, or even fifty or more years from now if the software isn't replaced.

So much for the more "innovative" past. >.<
Was This Post Helpful? 3
  • +
  • -

#22 trevster344  Icon User is offline

  • The Peasant
  • member icon

Reputation: 224
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,511
  • Joined: 16-March 11

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:56 AM

View Postaloneprogrammer, on 16 September 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

I'm not on innovation but today's dev don't have enough skills like pasts' dev


They have plenty.. you're just quite naive and haven't finished that puzzle yet.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#23 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4517
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,417
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:10 AM

*
POPULAR

today's topic creators are not as innovative as those of the past.
Was This Post Helpful? 17
  • +
  • -

#24 BenignDesign  Icon User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 6233
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,782
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:18 AM

We need to start from scratch and build a bigger, better topic creator.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#25 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 8009
  • View blog
  • Posts: 13,716
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:26 AM

View PostCTphpnwb, on 17 September 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

View Postpokiaka, on 16 September 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

While I can't agree that we should start again from scratch without advancing etc. I did read in Jeff Duntemann's assembly book that we've gotten lazy and spoiled with memory and whatnot, and in the time that programmers didn't have much memory and a super-CPU (as we have these days) to work with they built up a very efficient character.

They also did some really stupid things, like using two characters for the year instead of four. That cost businesses and individuals billions of dollars and millions of lost man hours to fix. In some cases, those same programers came up with "fixes" that are only temporary and will cause problems ten, twenty, or even fifty or more years from now if the software isn't replaced.

So much for the more "innovative" past. >.<



They were innovating. You usually get things wrong when you're innovating. That's why it's usually a bad idea to innovate just for its own sake.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#26 ishkabible  Icon User is offline

  • spelling expret
  • member icon




Reputation: 1623
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,710
  • Joined: 03-August 09

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:40 AM

the Y2K problem actually was very smart for programers if you ask me. It allowed them to push out more advanced software with less man powers at the time and THEN it employed a bunch of programers to fix it down the road.

would you rather be innovative or smart :P
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#27 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 8009
  • View blog
  • Posts: 13,716
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:51 AM

Regardless of the virtues of creating work for programmers down the road, the use of 2-digit dates was a very good design in an era of limited memory. This begins with punch cards, of course: you have 80 columns, it's 1950 - do you really think you want to use two columns for the year? As the records migrate to electronic storage, memory is still very expensive, and shaving two digits from that field still makes sense. The failure occurred later, when programmers failed to adapt the design to expanding memory capacities.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#28 GrantLyk  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: 5
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 25-March 11

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:44 AM

View Postaloneprogrammer, on 15 September 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Yes this is true today's programmer can't do what other do.There are many programming language but they built on C or on DENNIS RITHIES'S Shoulder and C is on Asm so someone can create asm which can create language which directly generate binary,can someone make things appear o monitor or create colours from ground-up without using anything all from scratch,etc....


Haha, oh so hipster, i bet you were programming before it was cool?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#29 duffman18  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 14
  • View blog
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20-October 10

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:24 PM

View PostGrantLyk, on 17 September 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

View Postaloneprogrammer, on 15 September 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Yes this is true today's programmer can't do what other do.There are many programming language but they built on C or on DENNIS RITHIES'S Shoulder and C is on Asm so someone can create asm which can create language which directly generate binary,can someone make things appear o monitor or create colours from ground-up without using anything all from scratch,etc....


Haha, oh so hipster, i bet you were programming before it was cool?


What! Programming is cool now!?!? If I would have known this sooner picking up women would have been so much easier.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#30 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5932
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,855
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:27 PM

View PostCTphpnwb, on 17 September 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

They also did some really stupid things, like using two characters for the year instead of four. That cost businesses and individuals billions of dollars and millions of lost man hours to fix.


You think a COBOL programmer writing code in the 1960s(!) was thinking about someone still running the same code long after they've retired? First known reference to Y2K is in 1984, in Computerworld. Even then, it sounded too far away to worry about. Who would keep one of these ancient systems running into the next century?

I have programs 10+ years old running live, in production, that were supposed to be a bandaid for the new systems that never came.

Remember, it's possible your code will run longer that you do. :P
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4