0378: "Real Programmers"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Lathe
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby Lathe » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:00 pm UTC

pnevma wrote:
gormster wrote:REAL, ACTUAL PROGRAMMERS USE IDES BECAUSE THAT BIZARRE COMMAND LINE BULLSHIT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND YOU GET FIRED

thank you

I'd like to you see you use your "fancy" ide faster than my prof can use vim... and he used emacs until a year ago.

I've never seen code from a prof that I would consider production quality. Most of the time, I just see them struggle to get code working once the codebase gets large enough. They've spent too much time on datastructures and not enough time on the coding areas that are more important (ex: I don't see much in the way of error handling). Ask your prof some questions about testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles, etc. You'll either get a deer in the headlights look or some high-level fluff that any manager could spout off.

I'd rather have a coder on my team that was slightly slow but better quality than fast and loose any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

User avatar
rqm
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby rqm » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:24 am UTC

And since nobody has mentioned it let me promote my favorite IDE komodo, and opensource release is available at http://www.openkomodo.com. (disclaimer, i am actually a happy scite user for general text manipulation)

AySz88
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:05 am UTC

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby AySz88 » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:32 am UTC

Lathe wrote:
pnevma wrote:
gormster wrote:REAL, ACTUAL PROGRAMMERS USE IDES BECAUSE THAT BIZARRE COMMAND LINE BULLSHIT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND YOU GET FIRED

thank you

I'd like to you see you use your "fancy" ide faster than my prof can use vim... and he used emacs until a year ago.

I've never seen code from a prof that I would consider production quality. Most of the time, I just see them struggle to get code working once the codebase gets large enough. They've spent too much time on datastructures and not enough time on the coding areas that are more important (ex: I don't see much in the way of error handling). Ask your prof some questions about testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles, etc. You'll either get a deer in the headlights look or some high-level fluff that any manager could spout off.

I'd rather have a coder on my team that was slightly slow but better quality than fast and loose any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


To me, this seems like a really weird way to judge a professor. I don't think a Computer Science PhD would consider "testing methodologies" and various enterprise procedures anything more than mundane tangents, and they're not something a comp sci PhD would exactly want to spend much time in. Comp sci professors don't get paid or recognized for error-free code - their job is to give people new ideas and proof-of-concepts. In fact, they'd probably get kicked out of their college if they didn't keep publishing new ideas in papers. Professors spending their time on perfect idiot-proof code probably sounds like total nonsense. (Perhaps that explains the "deer in headlights" look.) Programmers* are hired to do the grind work to turn these ideas into something for public consumption. So I guess neither "programmers" nor "computer scientists" are inherently better than the other - they do different things.

* [edit] plus user interface people, etc...

[edit2] I'm using "programmers" as "non-academia comp sci people", not the sense in the comic. :P

User avatar
lambage
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby lambage » Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>

User avatar
DeadCatX2
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:20 pm UTC

AySz88 wrote:
Lathe wrote:
pnevma wrote:
gormster wrote:REAL, ACTUAL PROGRAMMERS USE IDES BECAUSE THAT BIZARRE COMMAND LINE BULLSHIT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND YOU GET FIRED

thank you

I'd like to you see you use your "fancy" ide faster than my prof can use vim... and he used emacs until a year ago.

I've never seen code from a prof that I would consider production quality. Most of the time, I just see them struggle to get code working once the codebase gets large enough. They've spent too much time on datastructures and not enough time on the coding areas that are more important (ex: I don't see much in the way of error handling). Ask your prof some questions about testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles, etc. You'll either get a deer in the headlights look or some high-level fluff that any manager could spout off.

I'd rather have a coder on my team that was slightly slow but better quality than fast and loose any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


To me, this seems like a really weird way to judge a professor. I don't think a Computer Science PhD would consider "testing methodologies" and various enterprise procedures anything more than mundane tangents, and they're not something a comp sci PhD would exactly want to spend much time in. Comp sci professors don't get paid or recognized for error-free code - their job is to give people new ideas and proof-of-concepts. In fact, they'd probably get kicked out of their college if they didn't keep publishing new ideas in papers. Professors spending their time on perfect idiot-proof code probably sounds like total nonsense. (Perhaps that explains the "deer in headlights" look.) Programmers* are hired to do the grind work to turn these ideas into something for public consumption. So I guess neither "programmers" nor "computer scientists" are inherently better than the other - they do different things.

* [edit] plus user interface people, etc...

[edit2] I'm using "programmers" as "non-academia comp sci people", not the sense in the comic. :P

While I agree entirely that computer scientists and software engineers do different things, I do believe that some more concern for error handling and such would be appropriate. A Computer Science curriculum should be balanced with some tangential information regarding Software Engineering, which is really the application of debugging skills, source control, error-handling, etc. to Computer Science. A CS prof should reasonably know those software engineering principles, even if they do not apply them on a regular basis, just like a CS prof should know calculus even if their courses do not require it.

User avatar
'; DROP DATABASE;--
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:38 am UTC
Location: Midwest Alberta, where it's STILL snowy
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby '; DROP DATABASE;-- » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:39 pm UTC

lambage wrote:<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>
What does Visual Studio have to do with programming? (ooh burn)
poxic wrote:You suck. And simultaneously rock. I think you've invented a new state of being.

csours
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:22 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby csours » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:14 am UTC

echo dir > "%windir%\system32\ls.bat"

OK, its not exactly programming, but i have put that 'program' on many many systems

this one too:

echo %1 /? > "%windir%\system32\man.bat"

much easier than downloading cygwin (at the expense of a little bit of functionality*)



*a little bit = ~99%

User avatar
lambage
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby lambage » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:54 am UTC

'; DROP DATABASE;-- wrote:
lambage wrote:<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>
What does Visual Studio have to do with programming? (ooh burn)

Heh :lol: well I almost always resort to whip up anything in C# before I consider anything else for the job, but I'm just an intellisense whore. This results in me using the Visual Studio Express IDE, it's very shiny.

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby scarletmanuka » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:46 am UTC

csours wrote:echo dir > "%windir%\system32\ls.bat"

Ironic, because I have added this line to .profile or equivalent on several systems I use:

alias dir="ls -alFh"

Though that's mainly to save myself having to type in my preferred options every time.

Lathe
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby Lathe » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:24 pm UTC

DeadCatX2 wrote:
AySz88 wrote:
Lathe wrote:
pnevma wrote:
gormster wrote:REAL, ACTUAL PROGRAMMERS USE IDES BECAUSE THAT BIZARRE COMMAND LINE BULLSHIT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND YOU GET FIRED

thank you

I'd like to you see you use your "fancy" ide faster than my prof can use vim... and he used emacs until a year ago.

I've never seen code from a prof that I would consider production quality. Most of the time, I just see them struggle to get code working once the codebase gets large enough. They've spent too much time on datastructures and not enough time on the coding areas that are more important (ex: I don't see much in the way of error handling). Ask your prof some questions about testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles, etc. You'll either get a deer in the headlights look or some high-level fluff that any manager could spout off.

I'd rather have a coder on my team that was slightly slow but better quality than fast and loose any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


To me, this seems like a really weird way to judge a professor. I don't think a Computer Science PhD would consider "testing methodologies" and various enterprise procedures anything more than mundane tangents, and they're not something a comp sci PhD would exactly want to spend much time in. Comp sci professors don't get paid or recognized for error-free code - their job is to give people new ideas and proof-of-concepts. In fact, they'd probably get kicked out of their college if they didn't keep publishing new ideas in papers. Professors spending their time on perfect idiot-proof code probably sounds like total nonsense. (Perhaps that explains the "deer in headlights" look.) Programmers* are hired to do the grind work to turn these ideas into something for public consumption. So I guess neither "programmers" nor "computer scientists" are inherently better than the other - they do different things.

* [edit] plus user interface people, etc...

[edit2] I'm using "programmers" as "non-academia comp sci people", not the sense in the comic. :P

While I agree entirely that computer scientists and software engineers do different things, I do believe that some more concern for error handling and such would be appropriate. A Computer Science curriculum should be balanced with some tangential information regarding Software Engineering, which is really the application of debugging skills, source control, error-handling, etc. to Computer Science. A CS prof should reasonably know those software engineering principles, even if they do not apply them on a regular basis, just like a CS prof should know calculus even if their courses do not require it.

Just to add to what DeadCatX2 said: regardless of academia versus production environments, it is more efficient to focus on ways to produce better code rather than more code. In code editors, it is better to be the quality tortoise than the quantity hare.

n_ds
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:36 am UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby n_ds » Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:40 am UTC

I thought I would share this. We were discussing this comic in the lab and someone started singing "my ide is better than yours" and I was inspired.
To the tune of "Milkshake" by Kelis.

chorus:
my ide is better than yours
damn right its better than yours
damn right, its open source
you can use it, cus its free of charge

my ide is better than yours
damn right its better than yours
damn right, its open source
you can use it, cus its free of charge

i know you hate it
the way that it crashes
the editor that you're using
it can't do more, than edit files
you should use mine

la la la la la
start it up
la la la la la
the code is waiting
la la la la la
refactoring
la la la la la
it saves my workspace

chorus (2x)

i can see that you want it
the feature rich toolkit
the wizards are ea-sy
to un-der-stand
for skilled coders
its got skins too!

la la la la la
auto save
la la la la la
sweet code completion
la la la la la
es vee en (Svn)
la la la la la
hot debugger

my ide is better than yours
damn right its better than yours
damn right,
its open source,
you can use it, cus its free of charge

AySz88
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:05 am UTC

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby AySz88 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:59 am UTC

Lathe wrote:
DeadCatX2 wrote:
AySz88 wrote:
Lathe wrote:
pnevma wrote:
gormster wrote:REAL, ACTUAL PROGRAMMERS USE IDES BECAUSE THAT BIZARRE COMMAND LINE BULLSHIT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND YOU GET FIRED

thank you

I'd like to you see you use your "fancy" ide faster than my prof can use vim... and he used emacs until a year ago.

I've never seen code from a prof that I would consider production quality. Most of the time, I just see them struggle to get code working once the codebase gets large enough. They've spent too much time on datastructures and not enough time on the coding areas that are more important (ex: I don't see much in the way of error handling). Ask your prof some questions about testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles, etc. You'll either get a deer in the headlights look or some high-level fluff that any manager could spout off.

I'd rather have a coder on my team that was slightly slow but better quality than fast and loose any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


To me, this seems like a really weird way to judge a professor. I don't think a Computer Science PhD would consider "testing methodologies" and various enterprise procedures anything more than mundane tangents, and they're not something a comp sci PhD would exactly want to spend much time in. Comp sci professors don't get paid or recognized for error-free code - their job is to give people new ideas and proof-of-concepts. In fact, they'd probably get kicked out of their college if they didn't keep publishing new ideas in papers. Professors spending their time on perfect idiot-proof code probably sounds like total nonsense. (Perhaps that explains the "deer in headlights" look.) Programmers* are hired to do the grind work to turn these ideas into something for public consumption. So I guess neither "programmers" nor "computer scientists" are inherently better than the other - they do different things.

* [edit] plus user interface people, etc...

[edit2] I'm using "programmers" as "non-academia comp sci people", not the sense in the comic. :P

While I agree entirely that computer scientists and software engineers do different things, I do believe that some more concern for error handling and such would be appropriate. A Computer Science curriculum should be balanced with some tangential information regarding Software Engineering, which is really the application of debugging skills, source control, error-handling, etc. to Computer Science. A CS prof should reasonably know those software engineering principles, even if they do not apply them on a regular basis, just like a CS prof should know calculus even if their courses do not require it.

Just to add to what DeadCatX2 said: regardless of academia versus production environments, it is more efficient to focus on ways to produce better code rather than more code. In code editors, it is better to be the quality tortoise than the quantity hare.


DeadCatX2 - I'm very confused as to what you want...to what degree do you want these things taught in CS? Wouldn't some debugging skills and CVS or SVN be taught for assignments (for code-based courses)? I see that there's very little Software Engineering taught explicitly in Computer Science curricula, but there's at least enough taught by TAs for students to handle the logistics of programming and enable them to actually finish their assignments. I won't pretend that I know much about software engineering, but I think asking professors about "testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles" (as you suggested in your first post) is getting into details which they shouldn't be expected to know, as those seem to start to vary too much between individual apps and businesses and such. (Or, at least, my professors have mostly dismissed teaching these things as useless by graduation, they say either because approaches become disfavored too quickly or because specific corporate cultures will likely be rammed down the throats of those who go down the SE path anyway....but that could be an excuse for not teaching things they don't know. :P )

Perhaps we're looking at two different angles of Computer Science - you seem to be coming from the engineering approach (code), while I'm more familiar with looking at CS as a branch of mathematics (theory).

(I don't really understand what you mean by "error handling" now, and you keep bringing that up... I thought that you meant user-friendly handling of corner cases and invalid input, but now I'm not exactly sure. Of course, the fact that I don't know what you're talking about might be proving your point. :P )

Lathe - I'm not sure if we're actually getting at the same thing, but... What is being meant by 'quality'? Screaming fast cache-conscious O(expression with logs in it) code, or publicly-consumable corner-case-tested idiot-proof code? My point is that both are "quality" in their respective fields, with the other not as appreciated in the opposite field. DeadCatX2 seemed to suggest that he measures quality by only the latter, but this is not true, especially for computer scientists.

To expand more: Computer scientists would rather have super-fast "quality" code for a proof-of-concept, even if it's buggy on some corner cases or insecure on invalid inputs (as long as those things were irrelevant to the concept being demonstrated). "Correct" code that is much slower is totally irrelevant "quantity" to a CS person, and time invested to produce such code is not worth it. On the flip side, software engineers would rather have slower secure "quality" code, instead, to have something fit for public release, and fast but buggy code is useless "quantity" to them. (Of course, the optimum is to have both... :) )

Ezbez
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:25 am UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby Ezbez » Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:40 pm UTC

lambage wrote:<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>


Well sure, if you arbitrarily create a 'test' that is engineered to the precise design of the tool you support, then it shouldn't be a big surprise if you win. Hello, worlds aren't exactly the best gauge of how fast or powerful something is, especially since Visual Studios will give you some base code to work with that saves a large amount of time for making 'hello, world', but saves next to nothing in any real program. If you were to test which one could make a "Hello, world" without Windows Forms, I bet you that Vim could be done before Visual Studios had turned on. But again, that's just some arbitrary test that I created that was tailored for Vim and against Visual Studios. Neither one shows anything what-so-ever.

User avatar
lambage
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby lambage » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:46 pm UTC

Ezbez wrote:
lambage wrote:<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>


Well sure, if you arbitrarily create a 'test' that is engineered to the precise design of the tool you support, then it shouldn't be a big surprise if you win. Hello, worlds aren't exactly the best gauge of how fast or powerful something is, especially since Visual Studios will give you some base code to work with that saves a large amount of time for making 'hello, world', but saves next to nothing in any real program. If you were to test which one could make a "Hello, world" without Windows Forms, I bet you that Vim could be done before Visual Studios had turned on. But again, that's just some arbitrary test that I created that was tailored for Vim and against Visual Studios. Neither one shows anything what-so-ever.


That was rather the point I was making and why it was in the possible flame starting comment tag. Like other people have been harping, it's all about using the right tool for the job. I tend to like using VS for windows GUI apps because it has a WYSIWYG editor built in. I also like to use it when performance is not a huge issue because I find I program with less errors in the newer IDE's because of the instant feedback and intellisense. Vim is a text editor, a damn good one that has been adopted by programmers a long time ago. IDE's are designed as code editors, tailored to certain programmers (notice I didn't say all).

Here's a philosophical question that kind of gets my point across (I think):

If you have a headache do you take Advil or Tylenol?

User avatar
DeadCatX2
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:15 pm UTC

AySz88 wrote:DeadCatX2 - I'm very confused as to what you want...to what degree do you want these things taught in CS? Wouldn't some debugging skills and CVS or SVN be taught for assignments (for code-based courses)? I see that there's very little Software Engineering taught explicitly in Computer Science curricula, but there's at least enough taught by TAs for students to handle the logistics of programming and enable them to actually finish their assignments. ... Perhaps we're looking at two different angles of Computer Science - you seem to be coming from the engineering approach (code), while I'm more familiar with looking at CS as a branch of mathematics (theory).

I think part of the problem stems from the general consensus that Computer Science graduates are computer programmers. I think you're right in that the field of Computer Science is, specifically, more math oriented than programming oriented. In industry, however, a CS grad is quite often made to do what is more appropriately called Software Engineering.

So long as CS grads are, in practice, generally writing production code, I think that SE should be a significant portion of the curriculum (say, 12-16 credits which are tailored specifically to teach SE fundamentals).

I won't pretend that I know much about software engineering, but I think asking professors about "testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles" (as you suggested in your first post) is getting into details which they shouldn't be expected to know, as those seem to start to vary too much between individual apps and businesses and such. (Or, at least, my professors have mostly dismissed teaching these things as useless by graduation, they say either because approaches become disfavored too quickly or because specific corporate cultures will likely be rammed down the throats of those who go down the SE path anyway....but that could be an excuse for not teaching things they don't know. :P )

While I agree that each business, application, or API will have its own style, that should not negate the usefulness of teaching the fundamentals. For instance, a competent CS grad should have at least heard of Hungarian notation, and ideally would understand the purpose, merits, and flaws of such a notation. Otherwise, they eventually link against a Microsoft API and are forced to use Google to figure out what the hell a LPCSTR is (though they would likely still need to Google to understand what it stands for).

After all, there is some basic style which is indoctrinated into all new programmers (use comments, descriptive variables, etc). It certainly couldn't hurt to teach a basic style, or discuss various styles and their pros/cons. Better than letting the poor programmers develop whatever haphazard style that emerges from their untrained mind.

(I don't really understand what you mean by "error handling" now, and you keep bringing that up... I thought that you meant user-friendly handling of corner cases and invalid input, but now I'm not exactly sure. Of course, the fact that I don't know what you're talking about might be proving your point. :P )

I mean things like catching and handling exceptions (most people never pay attention to what exceptions a given function might throw), processing return values to ensure that the function call completed successfully (PARTICULARLY when writing kernel-mode code), terminating gracefully (storing important data in a temp file if the program crashes, and checking when it next opens for signs of abnormal termination)...corner cases and invalid input are also a part of that.

To expand more: Computer scientists would rather have super-fast "quality" code for a proof-of-concept, even if it's buggy on some corner cases or insecure on invalid inputs (as long as those things were irrelevant to the concept being demonstrated). "Correct" code that is much slower is totally irrelevant "quantity" to a CS person, and time invested to produce such code is not worth it. On the flip side, software engineers would rather have slower secure "quality" code, instead, to have something fit for public release, and fast but buggy code is useless "quantity" to them. (Of course, the optimum is to have both... :) )

I concur, the optimal approach is to have both an efficient algorithm and a wholesome, bug-free implementation. Consider, however, that many SEs code their implementations directly from the example given by a CS. Many of these examples fail to mention corner cases or failed return values. I'm not even asking that the CS implement the error checking, only that they mention it ("algorithm does not check X for equality to zero; may throw a DivideByZero Exception if inputs are not checked").

And, again, consider that the typical CS grad often finds themselves doing work more appropriately referred to as SE. It would help if those CS grads were indoctrinated with at least the fundamentals of writing good code.

User avatar
taylor_venable
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:22 pm UTC
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby taylor_venable » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:36 pm UTC

lambage wrote:If you have a headache do you take Advil or Tylenol?

Tylenol, because Advil will thin my blood. By a similar analogy, most IDEs make my blood boil. :)

I'm just really a hands-on guy and don't want some program I don't totally understand taking over my stuff. I prefer GNU Emacs, because any IDE-like feature I would actually want to have (like, NOT "Intelli"-sense) is either already written or I have added it myself. And you could say I don't understand Emacs, and the answer is "no I probably never will." But if I hit `C-x r d` and then I'm like, "WTF just happened?" I can do `C-h k C-x r d`, find out what that command does, then check the source to figure out why that command didn't do what I expected. Probably not a lot of people want this, so yeah, different strokes for different folks, but for me it's what floats my boat.

Maybe it also comes down to the fact that my .emacs file has evolved over the last five years - never was it totally unusable, I've just always discovered little things along the way. With an IDE, it's like I've got to have things set up right from the get-go or else it will throw all my build instructions into some obscure settings directory somewhere, rather that cleaning them up and putting them into the build.xml file I really wanted. Not to mention that using a text editor is portable; if the team settles on using Ant to build a Java project, and person A is using Eclipse and person B is using NetBeans, each IDE seems to want to throw its own crap into the project directory, which just adds clutter if you're not careful about controlling what Subversion is set to ignore. But if you just write your build.xml file from scratch, it doesn't matter if I use Emacs and somebody else uses Vim, because you still run the build from the command-line, and neither text editor tries to mess with the build process.

The .emacs thing is nice too, because when I move to another computer I just copy my .emacs file and my elisp directory onto that machine and I'm good to go. I talked to a friend yesterday who has literally reinstalled his operating system at least a couple times because he managed to screw up the installation and configuration of his Fedora build of Eclipse by adding random plugins.

Plus I use way too many programming languages, and I don't know if there's a good Prolog or Standard ML mode for Eclipse.

[I tried to be good, but I think it just turned into a rant. Oh well, it doesn't matter, because real programmers use Emacs anyway. :)]
My website: http://real.metasyntax.net:2357/
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." (Mark Twain)

zahlman
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:15 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby zahlman » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:10 pm UTC

lambage wrote:<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>


Including application start-up time?
Belial wrote:I once had a series of undocumented and nonstandardized subjective experiences that indicated that anecdotal data is biased and unreliable.

User avatar
lambage
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby lambage » Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:00 pm UTC

zahlman wrote:
lambage wrote:<possible flame starting comment> I'd like to see someone write a hello world windows form app in vim faster than I can in Visual Studio. </possible flame starting comment>


Including application start-up time?


While yes, that is one draw back, a lot of advantages you gain using a professional IDE stand out, like auto generated comments, code refactoring, automatic lookups for function/variable declarations, built in debugger. These are all very handy tools for prototyping or writing code from scratch. If your target is not a Windows PC or you are working on legacy code that has exotic build steps then this probably isn't the dev env for you.

User avatar
Sc4Freak
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:50 am UTC
Location: Redmond, Washington

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby Sc4Freak » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:05 am UTC

It seems to me that a large proportion of "real programmers" (ie. people who do this for a living) do actually use Visual Studio if they're developing Windows software.

Non-Windows software is a whole 'nother ballgame.

User avatar
DeadCatX2
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:23 pm UTC

Sc4Freak wrote:It seems to me that a large proportion of "real programmers" (ie. people who do this for a living) do actually use Visual Studio if they're developing Windows software.

Non-Windows software is a whole 'nother ballgame.

It doesn't have to be. Visual Studio is flexible enough to cross-compile for other architectures. Cross-compiling and adjusting the build procedure actually feels disturbingly similar to installing Linux in its arcane complexity...

tgape
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:18 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby tgape » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:55 pm UTC

I believe that if CS curriculum started with a course which covered good programming practices *well*, you'd only need to have part of the initial course devoted to the subject.

Doing proper automated testing and revision management allows me to spend less time manually stepping through the code to see what happens. I can make my changes, test them, and if they don't work, I can back them out. If I find that something I did 20 changes ago is causing problems moving forward, I can back out just that change, keeping the 19 changes I did since then (assuming that they are not to the same region of code, of course.)

Doing proper error detection/exception handling provides more benefit to me as a programmer, because it reduces my debug time by more than writing it takes.

Doing proper commenting reinforces in my mind exactly what I'm doing; it reduces my debugging time more than it takes to write the comments, and it reduces my coding time some as well.

Doing modular programming, on a large project, reduces coding time, debugging time, and reduces the time it takes to write unit tests, because they can focus better.

None of these things were properly addressed in my computer science courses in college. The first two courses required comments - but they didn't actually *look* at the comments. After I started using the vi editor command ':%s@\(.*\)@/* \1 */^M\1@' right before I turned in my assignments, I got all of the 'documentation' points on every assignment. Note that I do not personally believe that one comment per code line is *ever* a good idea, so long as you don't include the copyright header in the tally.


I think version management may require a bit of special mention. In college, one of the computer center sysadmins gave a short course on RCS - in about 2 hours, he covered the basics of revision control. On my first job in IT, we were required to use SCCS - a completely different system. However, all of the concepts carried over just fine, so I just needed 15 minutes to skim the man pages and write up a few aliases, and I was good to go. (If I wanted the full RCS functionality, I would've needed more wrapper than just a couple of simple aliases. However, I was just looking for the ability to check in, check out, and get diffs.)

Since then, I've used CVS, Subversion, PRCS, and probably half a dozen other systems that didn't leave as much of an impression. The concepts from RCS have continued to be helpful. CVS added a few concepts, and Subversion added one (that I came up with on my own - on a large project, independent version numbers on all your files can be a killer). If I recall correctly, git also added one or two concepts, but I never really used that much.

Based on this experience, I do not find it reasonable to not teach the concepts, simply because the actual tool the person will be needing to use is an unknown.


On more flame-worthy topics: many of us who write non-Windows software wouldn't use Microsoft IDEs even if they would reduce our time by 90% and eliminated all buggy code.

cathrl
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:58 am UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby cathrl » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:12 pm UTC

Sc4Freak wrote:It seems to me that a large proportion of "real programmers" (ie. people who do this for a living) do actually use Visual Studio if they're developing Windows software.

Non-Windows software is a whole 'nother ballgame.


In my experience, it would be about 50% of those who are using a compiler compatible with VS. (Even though these would mostly tend to be, um, older people who will have been programming for years before VS even existed. I'd expect a higher proportion of those who didn't learn to program before IDEs to be using it).

I have one project which isn't compatible with VS, and not being able to look at values in the debugger when it goes wrong and then make my changes in the same window slows me down no end. This would be the same project where all the screens are designed using format codes. AAARGH! Believe me, you really appreciate an IDE after spending a morning doing "left a bit, down a bit" on a new dialog...

I don't know anyone who uses VS to develop purely non-Windows software (though much of what I develop has to run on non-Windows platforms too, so to that extent I'm developing non-Windows software on it myself).

On more flame-worthy topics: many of us who write non-Windows software wouldn't use Microsoft IDEs even if they would reduce our time by 90% and eliminated all buggy code.


Does the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" mean anything to you? I appreciate that right now it's a moot point (there is no tool that good), but frankly if you took that attitude in a commercial job you'd be out on your rear end - or if you had the clout for that not to happen, you'd simply be massively outpaced by your competitors who didn't share your attitude.

User avatar
error666
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:55 pm UTC
Location: Houston TX
Contact:

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby error666 » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Lathe wrote:Just to add to what DeadCatX2 said: regardless of academia versus production environments, it is more efficient to focus on ways to produce better code rather than more code. In code editors, it is better to be the quality tortoise than the quantity hare.


Well said, in my group there are a variety of different perspectives, ide/text editors, and philosophies represented. My boss is an emacs ninja, just watching him working a buffer makes my head spin, and eye-balls throb. We have quite a few IntelliJ users, a hand-full of eclipse and netbeans users and two of us use TextMate full-time. The idea is that while observing good coding practices, the most comfortable work environment for an individual to work in is the one that is going to allow them to create the best quality code. Whatever your ide or text editor of choice is learn to use it well (i.e. stay away from the mouse as much as possible) and take advantage of any customizability. You will see your code quality and productivity soar. We do keep a cage of butterflies around though, we like to show-of at the HJUG meetings. :D
I was never much for Atari, ColecoVision was my console of choice. Anyone for a game of Smurfs?

rotw
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:54 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby rotw » Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:25 pm UTC

'Scuse me guys, but I think I've beaten pretty much everyone except the needle and the butterfly guys:

Code: Select all

martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "Project: Programming with cat, echo, grep and a few little tools ..." > info
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat info
Project: Programming with cat, echo, grep and a few little tools ...
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "First, we generate a list of characters via a small php script:"
First, we generate a list of characters via a small php script:
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat gen.php
<?php for($i=33;$i<127;$i++) echo chr($i)."\n"; ?>
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "We'll see what it does now:"
We'll see what it does now:
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ php gen.php | ./fltr.py
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "Now you're wondering what fltr.py does... Let's have a look:"
Now you're wondering what fltr.py does... Let's have a look:
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat fltr.py
#!/usr/bin/env python

import sys

print sys.stdin.read().replace('\n', '')
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "Yes, it removes linebreaks from stdin."
Yes, it removes linebreaks from stdin.
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "Now, let us generate some resources"
Now, let us generate some resources
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ php gen.php > chars
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo " " > string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo " " > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo 'Now let’s go'
Now let’s go
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep "e" | ./fltr.py > string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string
e
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep "c" | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat tmp
c
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp
e
c
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat hello.sh
ec
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string
ec
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep "h" | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp
ec
h
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat hello.sh
ech
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep "o" | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat hello.sh
echo
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo 'We have no space char in "chars" ... We’ll use echo for that!'
We have no space char in chars ... We’ll use echo for that!
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo " " > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep '"' | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep 'H' | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep 'i' | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cp hello.sh string
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat chars | grep '"' | ./fltr.py > tmp
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat string tmp | ./fltr.py > hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ chmod 0777 hello.sh
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ ./hello.sh
Hi
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ echo "<3"
<3
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$ cat hello.sh
echo "Hi"
martin@martin-desktop:~/cat$


OK. I admit, I didn't see the possibility of tr -d '\n' instead of the Python script, and I used vim to make those other scripts. But otherwise, this happened just like that! :)

User avatar
slightlymadscience
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:39 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby slightlymadscience » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:04 pm UTC

Meh, real programmers miss DOS and Assembly. :evil:
Cheers,

Slightly-Mad Science
We do Dangerously-Stupid Science Demos and Make Things 'Splodey!

User avatar
Shai
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:59 am UTC
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby Shai » Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:13 am UTC

Real programmers make decisions based on their level of interpretation of reality, be it as a result of lack of sleep or over-dose of alcohol consumption. If you have never written code while under the influence of a skill-inebriating chemical, you're not a real programmer. Hehe, that idea could be a whole thread.
I blame lag.

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby aldimond » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:30 am UTC

error666 wrote:(i.e. stay away from the mouse as much as possible)


The mouse is actually faster than the keyboard (even for an expert Vim user like myself) for most cursor movement and text selection, and eliminates the need for much of vi-style modality (even as modern Vim crams more and more features into inconsistently-designed submodes of insert, features that came from non-modal editors and don't map well to the vi model).

Google "Plan 9 from Bell Labs" and look for stuff on "acme". If you want to try acme on Unixy systems with X11 or on Windows there's a port which I think is called wily. But it really makes the most sense and works best within Plan 9. I won't guarantee you'll be hooked and switch to it for daily editing on Unix or Windows (it has some snags there), but it should open your eyes a bit. The keyboard is not always better.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

jabberwock33
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:18 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby jabberwock33 » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:48 am UTC

Real programmers change their mental state so that their perception of the universe fits the desired outcome.

User avatar
GCM
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby GCM » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

jabberwock33 wrote:Real programmers change their mental state so that their perception of the universe fits the desired outcome.


Oh no, someone who read The Secret!

I'm not sure what to make of it, but hey, it's helped me change my outlook of life, so can't really complain. (And that was just the first few pages)
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here. :D

User avatar
OBloodyHell
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby OBloodyHell » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

AySz88 wrote:
Lathe wrote:
DeadCatX2 wrote:
AySz88 wrote:
Lathe wrote:
pnevma wrote:
gormster wrote:REAL, ACTUAL PROGRAMMERS USE IDES BECAUSE THAT BIZARRE COMMAND LINE BULLSHIT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND YOU GET FIRED

thank you

I'd like to you see you use your "fancy" ide faster than my prof can use vim... and he used emacs until a year ago.

I've never seen code from a prof that I would consider production quality. Most of the time, I just see them struggle to get code working once the codebase gets large enough. They've spent too much time on datastructures and not enough time on the coding areas that are more important (ex: I don't see much in the way of error handling). Ask your prof some questions about testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles, etc. You'll either get a deer in the headlights look or some high-level fluff that any manager could spout off.

I'd rather have a coder on my team that was slightly slow but better quality than fast and loose any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


To me, this seems like a really weird way to judge a professor. I don't think a Computer Science PhD would consider "testing methodologies" and various enterprise procedures anything more than mundane tangents, and they're not something a comp sci PhD would exactly want to spend much time in. Comp sci professors don't get paid or recognized for error-free code - their job is to give people new ideas and proof-of-concepts. In fact, they'd probably get kicked out of their college if they didn't keep publishing new ideas in papers. Professors spending their time on perfect idiot-proof code probably sounds like total nonsense. (Perhaps that explains the "deer in headlights" look.) Programmers* are hired to do the grind work to turn these ideas into something for public consumption. So I guess neither "programmers" nor "computer scientists" are inherently better than the other - they do different things.

* [edit] plus user interface people, etc...

[edit2] I'm using "programmers" as "non-academia comp sci people", not the sense in the comic. :P

While I agree entirely that computer scientists and software engineers do different things, I do believe that some more concern for error handling and such would be appropriate. A Computer Science curriculum should be balanced with some tangential information regarding Software Engineering, which is really the application of debugging skills, source control, error-handling, etc. to Computer Science. A CS prof should reasonably know those software engineering principles, even if they do not apply them on a regular basis, just like a CS prof should know calculus even if their courses do not require it.

Just to add to what DeadCatX2 said: regardless of academia versus production environments, it is more efficient to focus on ways to produce better code rather than more code. In code editors, it is better to be the quality tortoise than the quantity hare.


DeadCatX2 - I'm very confused as to what you want...to what degree do you want these things taught in CS? Wouldn't some debugging skills and CVS or SVN be taught for assignments (for code-based courses)? I see that there's very little Software Engineering taught explicitly in Computer Science curricula, but there's at least enough taught by TAs for students to handle the logistics of programming and enable them to actually finish their assignments. I won't pretend that I know much about software engineering, but I think asking professors about "testing methodologies, automation approaches, compare/contrast various coding styles" (as you suggested in your first post) is getting into details which they shouldn't be expected to know, as those seem to start to vary too much between individual apps and businesses and such. (Or, at least, my professors have mostly dismissed teaching these things as useless by graduation, they say either because approaches become disfavored too quickly or because specific corporate cultures will likely be rammed down the throats of those who go down the SE path anyway....but that could be an excuse for not teaching things they don't know. :P )

Perhaps we're looking at two different angles of Computer Science - you seem to be coming from the engineering approach (code), while I'm more familiar with looking at CS as a branch of mathematics (theory).

(I don't really understand what you mean by "error handling" now, and you keep bringing that up... I thought that you meant user-friendly handling of corner cases and invalid input, but now I'm not exactly sure. Of course, the fact that I don't know what you're talking about might be proving your point. :P )

Lathe - I'm not sure if we're actually getting at the same thing, but... What is being meant by 'quality'? Screaming fast cache-conscious O(expression with logs in it) code, or publicly-consumable corner-case-tested idiot-proof code? My point is that both are "quality" in their respective fields, with the other not as appreciated in the opposite field. DeadCatX2 seemed to suggest that he measures quality by only the latter, but this is not true, especially for computer scientists.

To expand more: Computer scientists would rather have super-fast "quality" code for a proof-of-concept, even if it's buggy on some corner cases or insecure on invalid inputs (as long as those things were irrelevant to the concept being demonstrated). "Correct" code that is much slower is totally irrelevant "quantity" to a CS person, and time invested to produce such code is not worth it. On the flip side, software engineers would rather have slower secure "quality" code, instead, to have something fit for public release, and fast but buggy code is useless "quantity" to them. (Of course, the optimum is to have both... :) )



You know, it's amazing how little people grasp the importance of the part that matters -- the user interface. There are more "perfect" programs out there which aren't used or get major complaints than ones which have a perfect interface but crap out all the time.

User interfaces matter. A lot. It's the coders' window to the user -- and if you design the interface wrong, you WILL have your name in curses.

And remember -- in engineer's hell, you are forced to use the tools you created in your life. ENDLESSLY.

So make that interface perfect. Make it easy, make it obvious, and make it sensible.

User avatar
notzeb
Without Warning
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Location: a series of tubes

Re: Real Programmers Discussion

Postby notzeb » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:25 pm UTC

OBloodyHell wrote:if you design the interface wrong, you WILL have your name in curses.

I make all of my user interfaces with curses.
Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­Z

CNA
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:12 am UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby CNA » Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:14 am UTC

Real men write self modifying code.

(First computer, an IBM 650 with no index registers.)

User avatar
echelle
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:59 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby echelle » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:20 pm UTC

just thought id point out that in unix ed is the standard editor :mrgreen:
thehivemind5 wrote:
many things are fundamental to the concept of humanity, but, in my opinion at least, carbon is not one of them.


Liberals are closet aristocrats

dcsobral
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby dcsobral » Thu May 27, 2010 9:16 pm UTC

I would also like a "real programmers use butterflies" shirt a lot! In fact, I was pondering about buying a geeky t-shirt, and was much surprised that there wasn't anything from this comic in the store.

MetaBrain
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:31 am UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby MetaBrain » Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:33 am UTC

ALL LIES !!

Real programmers use this :
Image

(nobody thought about that yet? :p)

hatten
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:18 pm UTC

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby hatten » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:43 pm UTC

no, what's that? ;)

User avatar
DarthMarth
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:07 pm UTC

Re: 0378: "Real Programmers"

Postby DarthMarth » Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:54 pm UTC

Well, I guess I'm a fake programmer because I use gedit. When I first tried vi, I had to restart the terminal because I couldn't figure out how to quit. :?

User avatar
RebeccaRGB
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:36 am UTC
Location: Lesbians Love Bluetooth
Contact:

Re: "Real Programmers" Discussion

Postby RebeccaRGB » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:30 pm UTC

MetaBrain wrote:ALL LIES !!

Real programmers use this :
(MS-DOS Editor)

(nobody thought about that yet? :p)

MS-DOS Editor? Real programmers use COPY CON PROGRAM.EXE!
Stephen Hawking: Great. The entire universe was destroyed.
Fry: Destroyed? Then where are we now?
Al Gore: I don't know. But I can darn well tell you where we're not—the universe!

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: 0378: "Real Programmers"

Postby phillipsjk » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:17 am UTC

RebeccaRGB wrote:MS-DOS Editor? Real programmers use COPY CON PROGRAM.EXE!


The is approximately equivalent to:

Code: Select all

$ cat /usr/bin/program


I don't see where the editing is happening.

The classic painful DOS editor is edlin, based on ed.

OOhh IC: "cat" is mentioned in the comic, "COPY CON" is the DOS equivalent.
Did you get the number on that truck?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 0378: "Real Programmers"

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:54 pm UTC

Real programmers know how to make the tool of their choice (or the choice of the business they are working for) work for them in a way that produces good code within a reasonable time frame. They also have a decent understanding of algorithm design and code optimization.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests