adamsf@rpics (Frank Adams) (12/24/88)
(I am directing follow-ups to comp.software-eng; this has nothing to do with architecture any more.) In article <1992@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncsmith@ndsuvax.UUCP (Timothy Smith) writes: > I have to disagree with your last sentence. If you extend this to >every area in which a programmer may be doing work, ... then the programmer >has to know about every trick in that area ... I think that the >programmer should examine what the specialist wants done, find areas that >look like canidates for optimization, and then ask the specialist ... I disagree strongly. A professional writing programs in any subject area has a responsibility to be become, if not expert, at least reasonably well informed about that subject. This is what employers should be looking for when hiring programmers, not familiarity with language X. (Although the latter can sometimes substitute for the former -- it is a safe bet that someone who knows MUMPS will know something about medical practice.) Frank Adams adamsf@cs.rpi.edu
mlewis@unocss.UUCP (Marcus S. Lewis) (12/24/88)
> informed about that subject. This is what employers should be looking > for when hiring programmers, not familiarity with language X. (Although > the latter can sometimes substitute for the former -- it is a safe bet > that someone who knows MUMPS will know something about medical practice.) > I love sweeping generalizations! Sorry, I have to cut in. I run a machine for a stock brokerage and our entire back office system, as well as out front office system is writtenentirely in MUMPS. We also have a product for brokers not in our office based on a multi-user PC based MUMPS. Not a medical person in the bunch. BTW, any person hiring a MUMPS programmer is likely more concerned with the "MUMPS mindset" than familiarity with the actual application. "Good programmers" who don't have the mindset to deal with teh MUMPS paradigm make lousy MUMPS programmers. Marc Lewis