51 Replies - 8655 Views - Last Post: 08 October 2012 - 07:31 PM
#31
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:28 PM
Because efficiency is the only goal in coding?
Not accessibility of the code?
Or how about the efficiency of man hours?
Or the efficiency of training?
Readability?
If we wanted efficiency, why do we even bother with human readable languages as opposed to machine language? Why do we bother with cross platform runtimes?
Srsly... cause efficiency of the code, that's our only goal.
#32
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:41 PM
#33
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:45 PM

#34
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:47 PM
jon.kiparsky, on 17 September 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:
They should have used Julian Date encoding in the first place, then it would have delayed the issue to 2078. (Assuming epoch date of 1/Jan/1960) (7bit year, 9bits day in year).
#35
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:49 PM
lordofduct, on 17 September 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
Because efficiency is the only goal in coding?
Not accessibility of the code?
Or how about the efficiency of man hours?
Or the efficiency of training?
Readability?
If we wanted efficiency, why do we even bother with human readable languages as opposed to machine language? Why do we bother with cross platform runtimes?
Srsly... cause efficiency of the code, that's our only goal.
Reminds me of the industrial revolution, the age of machine doing the work that man can do except far more efficiently.
#36
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:28 PM
baavgai, on 17 September 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:
CTphpnwb, on 17 September 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:
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.

In the 1960s? No. From the late 70s on, yes. Tempus fugit, and twenty something years isn't very long.
I remember asking about the date issue in 1980 (Fortran: my first programming class) and being told that if anyone was still running this junk in twenty years it was their own fault. Since they were admitting that their code was junk I gave up the argument. By the way, the first Mac OS (and subsequent versions too) never had a Y2K issue. Somebody was thinking ahead in the early 1980s.
#37
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:44 PM
CTphpnwb, on 17 September 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:
60s.
From your Wikipedia:
Quote
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL
IBM ships soon after:
Quote
IBM 7094 computer announced. A typical 7094 sold for $3,134,500. IBM provided customers with a complete package of 7090/7094 programs, including FORTRAN and COBOL programming languages
-- http://www.vikingwat...s/MFHistory.htm
If you're laying down $3.1M ( who know's how much that was in 1962 dollars ), I'm thinking you might have a plan to use one of those new fangled "high-level" languages provided.
#38
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 06:30 PM
#39
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 17 September 2012 - 06:38 PM
I think I'm getting a bit off topic though. My main point is that programmers are people, and so they're just as flawed as everyone else. As with most other jobs, at any point in time you have a minority that are truly innovative and/or highly skilled and then you have a bunch that range from good to mediocre. The rest are truly awful and should be doing something else. If all you see are the terrible examples your opinion will be skewed in that direction, so my advice is to read sites like this one but pay the most attention to the thoughtful answers and try to ignore the lazy questions.

#40
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:53 AM
Programmers of this era are very innovative too with what we have and where we find ourselves. We don't have to go back in time and re-invent the wheels to prove that. After all, the innovations of our predecessors was meant to be for our benefit so that we can go on and be innovative on our own based on their own innovations!
I hope you get my drift @OP.
#41
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:59 AM
Ace26, on 18 September 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:
Um, no. The innovations of our predecessors were for their own benefit. They wanted to make neat stuff, so they did. They wanted also to process payroll data and model airflow over wings and stuff like that, so they did. We happen to be able to build on some of their work, which is handy, but it's just a side effect.
#42
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:59 AM
#43
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:02 AM

#44
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 07 October 2012 - 02:48 PM
But I actually agree that programmers of the past were way more innovative. It's not because there were more great programmers coming up with unique ideas back then, it's just that back in the day you probably didn't have a computer unless you were really passionate about computing and you knew what you were doing. Also, the advances in hardware and software are hardly related; our brains aren't getting smarter as processors get smaller.
#45
Re: Today's programmer is not such innovative as past's
Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:07 PM
I don't see any problem with innovation today, I just see that tons of programs have already been invented haha.