Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi (SPLAT) <GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (07/25/90)
As many of you probably know, mac programming has reached nearly cult-like status . At the developers conference I was in a huge room with thousands of people chanting "MOOF MOOF MOOF". This is not the typical IBM systems introduction kind of place I thought to myself. Question 1 - Why is it that most of the really good mac programmers I met are rarely CS grads. Lots of physics guys, some math, some arts etc. (I have however met some REAL hotshot CS grad programmers in Cupertino) Question 2 - What is the difference between a Geek and a Nerd?. I think a Nerd LIKES unix. Question 3 - Do the people who work for/at Apple really have as much fun as they say they do? Question 4 - Are valley girls real? Peter Gross Queen's University Kingston, Canada
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (07/26/90)
In article <90206.152308GROSSPA@QUCDN.BITNET> GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (SPLAT) writes: > As many of you probably know, mac programming has reached nearly cult-like > status . Actually, I don't think it's nearly as "cultish" now as it was, say, three years ago. A lot of "establishment" types have discovered the Mac. > At the developers conference I was in a huge room with thousands of > people chanting "MOOF MOOF MOOF". This is not the typical IBM systems > introduction kind of place I thought to myself. Thank you. :-) We in MacDTS are especially proud to have given the cult its official mascot, complete with vocalization. > Question 1 - Why is it that most of the really good mac programmers I met are > rarely CS grads. Lots of physics guys, some math, some arts etc. (I have > however met some REAL hotshot CS grad programmers in Cupertino) Let's put it this way: I was a CS major at Indiana U., home of the likes of Douglas Hoftstadter and Daniel Friedman in January of 1984, when the Macintosh was introduced. My fellow CS-major roomie and his best friend and I trapsed over to the local Apple dealer in good ol' Bloomington, Indiana (and yes, it really does look like it did in "Breaking Away") to check out the machine. Like most of us, I was immediately blown away by the lasso in MacPaint. You could grab irregularly-shaped areas and drag them around, and you could see through the blank parts while doing so! Amazing! My friends' reaction? I quote my roommate: "I'm a computer-science major; I don't need a stinking mouse." When you're thinking about elitist scumbag professionals, or students who are trying to become one, when you think of journalists, lawyers, and doctors, don't forget computer scientists (NOTE: FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T CAPABLE OF READING BETWEEN THE LINES, THIS IS A *JOKE*). > Question 2 - What is the difference between a Geek and a Nerd?. I think a > Nerd LIKES unix. A geek is the guy at the county fair who bites the heads off of live chickens. I'm not familiar with the origins of the word "nerd," so I can't really answer the question. > Question 3 - Do the people who work for/at Apple really have as much fun as > they say they do? No; we're all really brainwashed slave labor. :-) Of course we really have as much fun as we say we do; where else can a person get paid to play with "all those wonderful toys?" > Question 4 - Are valley girls real? Keep in mind that "valley girl" doesn't refer to Silicon Valley. My understanding is that it refers to San Fernando Valley, which is several hundred miles south of here. In any case, the frightening reality is that the stereotypical valley girl (and guy) actually does exist. __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
blob@apple.com (Brian Bechtel) (07/26/90)
In article <90206.152308GROSSPA@QUCDN.BITNET> GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (SPLAT) writes: > At the developers conference I was in a huge room with thousands of > people chanting "MOOF MOOF MOOF". That should have been "MOOF(tm) MOOF(tm) MOOF(tm)." Yup, Developer Technical Support had Apple trademark Moof. > Question 3 - Do the people who work for/at Apple really have as much fun > as they say they do? It's the most fun you can have with your pants on. > Question 4 - Are valley girls real? I'm married to one. The San Fernando Valley is just north of Los Angeles, about 400 miles south of Cupertino. --Brian Bechtel blob@apple.com "My opinion, not Apple's"
pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) (07/26/90)
In article <9424@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > Like most of us, I was immediately blown away by the lasso in MacPaint. > You could grab irregularly-shaped areas and drag them around, and you > could see through the blank parts while doing so! Amazing! > > My friends' reaction? I quote my roommate: "I'm a computer-science major; > I don't need a stinking mouse." The "correct" answer is, "I'm a computer science major; I don't need no steenking hardware." Real CS majors program Turing machines and prove algorithms using the lambda calculus. Seriously though, CS education is extremely useful and helpful, but, like many other fields, it teaches you only a small amount of what you need to know. Anybody who is even remotely successful needs to go way beyond this. People who don't may feel more comfortable with something other than a Macintosh. Eric Pepke INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions. Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi (SPLAT) <GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (07/26/90)
Perhaps one of the reasons so many non-CS types like programming Mac's, even though they are one of the most difficult computers to program, is the philosophy of programming esthetics. Mac programming is half art, half engineering. I always thought that PC programming was one third aggrivation, one third boredom and one third irritation. But then again some of my friends think I'm wierd for getting excited about technotes and stuff like that. I guess I'm just a nerd.
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (07/27/90)
In article <90206.152308GROSSPA@QUCDN.BITNET> GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (SPLAT) writes: > As many of you probably know, mac programming has reached nearly cult-like > status . At the developers conference I was in a huge room with thousands of > people chanting "MOOF MOOF MOOF". I wasn't there. I am far too dignified to chant "MOOF" (in public. In private, however, I always moof cheerfully back to Clarus the DogCow on the splash screen of the technotes stack.) > Question 1 - Why is it that most of the really good mac programmers I met are > rarely CS grads. Lots of physics guys, some math, some arts etc. (I have > however met some REAL hotshot CS grad programmers in Cupertino) Beats me. My degree's in philosophy. > Question 2 - What is the difference between a Geek and a Nerd?. I think a > Nerd LIKES unix. Careful; *I* like Unix. I just like the Mac better. In my opinion, a nerd can't help it; a geek deliberately pursues geekiness. I'm a geek, and *fiercely* proud of it. > Question 3 - Do the people who work for/at Apple really have as much fun as > they say they do? In article <9429@goofy.Apple.COM> blob@apple.com (Brian Bechtel) writes: > It's the most fun you can have with your pants on. Not so. Jazz is the most fun you can have with your pants on. Mac programming comes next. (The comments at the head of my source files, left by my predecessor, say "Making your life easier, by making ours a living hell." But I still can't believe they pay me to do this all day long. ) > Question 4 - Are valley girls real? Yup. > Peter Gross > Queen's University > Kingston, Canada :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 77-A | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
snow@china.uu.net (John Snow) (07/28/90)
In article <9429@goofy.Apple.COM> blob@apple.com (Brian Bechtel) writes: > >That should have been "MOOF(tm) MOOF(tm) MOOF(tm)." Yup, Developer >Technical Support had Apple trademark Moof. > Does this mean that old jokes will have to be modified? Long before Apple was a gleam in anyone's eye, MOOF was the answer to the question: 'What does a hairlip cow say?', or something like that. Does this have anything to do with a dogcow (I have yet to figure out what that's suppost to be)? -- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: John Snow - MDC | any opinions are purely accidental :: Denver, Colorado | and not the fault of the management :: Try mailing to: [snow@salt.uu.net] or maybe [uunet!salt!snow]
bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) (07/30/90)
After everyone assembles in a big room and starts chanting MOOF(tm) to a projected image of Clarus(tm?) the dogcow(tm?), does someone from NeXT sprint into the room and toss a hammer at the screen? It seems to me I saw something like this in a TV commercial a few years ago. :-) -- John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476
escher@Apple.COM (Michael Crawford) (08/01/90)
In article <90206.152308GROSSPA@QUCDN.BITNET> GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (SPLAT) writes: >Question 1 - Why is it that most of the really good mac programmers I met are >rarely CS grads. Lots of physics guys, some math, some arts etc. (I have >however met some REAL hotshot CS grad programmers in Cupertino) My studies were in physics, but I left it when I decided to become an artist. I found that art does not pay, so rather than pursue a life of crime I became a programmer. I have a friend from college who was a brilliant math student. He decided to become a double major in physics, thinking that since physics is full of math, he would have an easy time. He was so inept in lab, one wondered how he could tie his shoes in the morning. He had no physical intuition at all, really choked on quantum mechanics, and scoffed at the informal methods that physicists used to solve problems. He very nearly failed out of school. Now, I am an entirely a self taught programmer (I had but one computer science course in college -- data structures). I do find that I have a lifetime of experience in doing practical things (my goal in physics had been to do experimental work, as I like working with my hands). What I lack in theoretical background I more than make up for in practical skills. Bugs cannot hide from my eye. I can hack circles around most computer science baccalaureates that I have encountered in my career, given otherwise equal experience. For a long time I considered programming a purely short term thing until I got a decent portfolio together and could start getting into galleries, and into art school. One thing that concerned me though is, what I could do in the way of art that would be different from the rest of the herd? I have always been interested in computer graphics, yet I found that most existing computer graphics were quite harsh, poorly composed, and garishly colored. All the computer animation festivals I have viewed have put me to sleep. I also found that most artists had not the slightest concept of how to program, though some know now how to work with them, thanks to the Mac. So, given an artistic medium filled with promise, but, in my opinion, little to show so far, I have a tremendoes advantage: I am an artist who knows how to program, and a programmer who has a sense of aesthetics. I program the Mac because I want to make computer graphics that are real art, and it is the computer of choice for artists. I do rather prefer Unix for development, though. I do feel that my lack of formal education is becoming more of a hindrance as a progress from a coder to a designer. Because of this, I spend a great deal of my time studying computer science theory on my own. I do feel that my self study has benefited me far more than the tens of thousands of dollars that my parents, the government, and I spent on my formal education (this would be so, even had I been educated in the field that I am now working in). I still have no degree, though I am actually going to complete my physics degree so interviewers stop asking why I never graduated. >Question 2 - What is the difference between a Geek and a Nerd?. I think a >Nerd LIKES unix. A nerd is a person who is so interested in some subject that they lose all sense of social conformity. Nerds are lost in their heads. A geek is a nerd who's interest is in computers. One also has art nerds, and so on. This is the definition in use at UC Santa Cruz, at least when I was a geek there. In old days, geeks bit the heads off chickens. Anyone out there that can tell me what a twit is? Consult Kurt Vonnegut. >Question 3 - Do the people who work for/at Apple really have as much fun as >they say they do? I have as much fun as I say I do. >Question 4 - Are valley girls real? Gag me with a spoon! Are _you_ for real? -- Michael D. Crawford Oddball Enterprises Consulting for Apple Computer Inc. 606 Modesto Avenue escher@apple.com Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Applelink: escher@apple.com@INTERNET# oddball!mike@ucscc.ucsc.edu The opinions expressed here are solely my own. alias make '/bin/make & rn'
ralph@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Ralph Martin) (08/01/90)
Are you sure MOOF has a valid Apple TradeMark? I always thought that MOOF was simply the noise that dogs made that had been fed on pet food made from British Beef (you know, the stuff with mad cow disease). I sure wouldn't want to associate MY company with that! Ralph
mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi (08/02/90)
In article <312@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes: > Seriously though, CS education is extremely useful and helpful, but, like > many other fields, it teaches you only a small amount of what you need to > know. Anybody who is even remotely successful needs to go way beyond > this. People who don't may feel more comfortable with something other > than a Macintosh. The trouble with CS majors and the Mac (note the .sig below..) is that we have grown up amongst genuinely user-hostile arcane computers (my U had a BURROUGHS..) and thus come to accept - even ENDORSE (UNIX!) - nonintuitive interfaces etc. Then we recommend the same to others as authorities in the field. Just yesterday a teacher in my dept. rejected my suggestion that Word & Expressionist might be easier than TeX with "WYSIWYG tends to be distracting when *real* work is being done".. On the other hand, will the Mac generation once be in the same position? "I really can't see why the fuss about sight-directed interfaces. I can do the same with my mouse!" -- Matti Nyk{nen CS Student at Helsinki U, Finland email: mnykanen@cc.helsinki.FI The best opinions available; get them while they're hot!
ralph@mtunq.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug1.083010.1088@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk> ralph@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Ralph Martin) writes: >Are you sure MOOF has a valid Apple TradeMark? I always thought that MOOF was It's on the list of trademarks that Apple's legal department sends out. That's good enough for me! (And actually, it's Moof!(TM) with an !) -- Ralph Brandi ralph@mtunq.att.com att!mtunq!ralph Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged.
siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) (08/03/90)
In article <2840.26b7eb6e@cc.helsinki.fi> mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >................. Just yesterday a teacher in my dept. rejected >my suggestion that Word & Expressionist might be easier than TeX with This is a side issue from the point you were arguing, but TeX, on a Mac or PC, with a good previewer, IMHO really CAN be easier than Word & Expressionist, or similar WYSIWYG systems. Just for the record, with the current version of Textures on the Mac you edit your source file using the Mac-like text editor built into Textures, then hit CTRL-T to start typesetting. _Within a few seconds_ the first typeset page appears in the preview window on the screen. You can zoom in or out on that page, and examine it in macro or micro fashion, while typesetting of subsequent pages continues in the background. You can go back to the source file and make corrections or changes in it, while typesetting continues in the background. As subsequent pages are typeset (a few seconds each) you can move back and forth through them and examine them in similar detail, while typesetting continues in the background. In other words, it's pretty darn close to WYSIWYG. But the point I'd really like to make is that as soon as the situation gets at all complicated, so-called WYSIWYG really isn't WYSIWYG any more, and the attempt at having WYSIWYG makes things worse, not better. Consider some level of subheading in a typical WYSIWYG system. Sure, the subheadings will all look on the screen more or less like however it is they'll really print. But this formatting is controlled by some special ruler, or style sheet, or something like that, associated with that level of subhead; AND YOU GENERALLY DON'T "SEE" THAT STYLE SHEET IN ANY SIMPLE OR CLEAR FASHION. In a TeX source file if I see a line that says \subhed2{Section 3.1: Further Properties of WYSIWYG Systems} I can SEE immediately, not only that this is a level 2 subhead, and what its contents are, but also what macro definition ("\subhed2"} I have to jump to (with my text editor) to modify ALL the subheads at that level. In a WYSIWYG word processor there is of course also (usually) some way to get at the style sheet or ruler or whatever it is that will change the format of all the level 2 subheads; but this process is generally _different_ in every word processor; it's generally NOT immediately visible or obvious; it's often arcane or complicated; and it's often dangerous (it's hard to be sure that you've actually changed ALL the subheadings you wanted to change, and hard to be sure you haven't accidentally changed some other things you didn't want to change). My claim: At some level of complexity -- and not a very high level -- WYSIWYG inherently fails; and a procedural or "markup" or coded style of formatting like TeX is really easier -- especially when things are as beautifully designed as TeX, and Textures, are.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/03/90)
-------- Not really sure this belongs in .programmer anymore, but here goes... In article <188@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>, siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes... >This is a side issue from the point you were arguing, but TeX, on a >Mac or PC, with a good previewer, IMHO really CAN be easier than Word >& Expressionist, or similar WYSIWYG systems. [...] >In other words, it's pretty darn close to WYSIWYG. But the point I'd >really like to make is that as soon as the situation gets at all >complicated, so-called WYSIWYG really isn't WYSIWYG any more, and the >attempt at having WYSIWYG makes things worse, not better. > [...] > >In a TeX source file if I see a line that says > > \subhed2{Section 3.1: Further Properties of WYSIWYG Systems} > How do you know how to write this? Could I sit right down and figure it out? Chances are I couldn't do it on a Mac system either, but maybe, just maybe. [...] >In a WYSIWYG word processor there is of course also (usually) some way >to get at the style sheet or ruler or whatever it is that will change >the format of all the level 2 subheads; but this process is generally >_different_ in every word processor; it's generally NOT immediately >visible or obvious; it's often arcane or complicated; and it's often >dangerous (it's hard to be sure that you've actually changed ALL the >subheadings you wanted to change, and hard to be sure you haven't >accidentally changed some other things you didn't want to change). These seem like very generalized claims. If indeed that's true, then it's the fault of the app, not of WYSIWYG as a whole. Indeed, I would claim that it should be easier to accomplish with a graphical interface, such as would be found in a WYSIWYG program, than with a pure-text program. Sure, once you know the TeX programming language, it may be easier to change a line than to go thru a dialog, but these presupposes that you know the language. Are all typesetting languages the same? Do they have to be? Do you think it is more likely that a naive user would be able to go from FullWrite, say, to Nisus as a TeX user would be able to go to ZapWRITE (new, not real, typesetting language, but which, for purposes of this example, has little syntax in common with TeX). >My claim: At some level of complexity -- and not a very high level -- >WYSIWYG inherently fails; and a procedural or "markup" or coded style >of formatting like TeX is really easier -- especially when things are >as beautifully designed as TeX, and Textures, are. Well, then you should _love_ WordPerfect for the PC. :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (08/03/90)
In article <C77$#Z%@rpi.edu> Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) writes: >In article <90206.152308GROSSPA@QUCDN.BITNET> > GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (SPLAT) writes: >> Question 1 - Why is it that most of the really good mac programmers I >> meet are rarely CS grads. Lots of physics guys, some math, some arts etc. >> (I have however met some REAL hotshot CS grad programmers in Cupertino) My pet peeve about most CS curricula is that they train people to be computer scientists, not professional software engineers; I am yet to see a course of study which provides emphasis on the design and implementation of production code. I'm a physics major who was interested in programming, so I did software to help (typically) computer-ignorant scientists and engineers work most effectively with their data-gathering equipment. >I can't speak for all CS-type people, but in my case the reason I avoided >the Mac initially was a simple matter of size and power. It wasn't until >the Mac got to the Mac Plus size that I could get myself interested in it, I started writing Mac code using Macintosh Pascal on a 512K machine with two 400K floppy drives. Little did I know that I'd grow up to do a version of Macintosh Pascal, and use a Mac II to do it... R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "Who could sleep when there's a hunk with no clothes on wandering around at five in the morning, knocking over furniture?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (08/04/90)
In article <90206.152308GROSSPA@QUCDN.BITNET> GROSSPA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (SPLAT) writes: > Question 1 - Why is it that most of the really good mac programmers I > meet are rarely CS grads. Lots of physics guys, some math, some arts etc. > (I have however met some REAL hotshot CS grad programmers in Cupertino) I can't speak for all CS-type people, but in my case the reason I avoided the Mac initially was a simple matter of size and power. It wasn't until the Mac got to the Mac Plus size that I could get myself interested in it, although I *did* like the interface a lot. Why go with a 512K Mac when I was working with multi-megabyte programs on the mainframe? Now that Apple is up to Mac IIfx power, I like it a lot (and now I have the problem of catching up with all the people who got into Mac programming several years ago). Of course, it probably should be noted that I came to RPI for Physics, and ended up switching to computer science, so maybe I'm not a genuine CS-type person... > Question 2 - What is the difference between a Geek and a Nerd? Okay, first things first. Forget Hollywood movies and the such-like, the proper spelling for the word is KNURD, not NERD. The reason is that KNURD is DRUNK spelled backwards. I don't know what the current definition of knurd is, but back when I was in college it meant a person who would rather be doing learning-type things instead of partying on weekends (thus the spelling). Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu Long-time knurd and systems programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
anarch@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (The Anarch) (08/04/90)
In article <3726@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > My pet peeve about most CS curricula is that they train people to >be computer scientists, not professional software engineers; I am yet to Whoa, that's a shocker! Really, what do you expect from a Computer Science education but a computer scientist? Computer Science is an academic discipline, and, like most academic disciplines, doesn't attempt to develop skills that are readily applicable to non-academic environments. That's why we have night courses and trade schools (ITT Technical Institue, anyone? :-) -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-anarch@dartmouth.edu+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall, And universal darkness buries all. D I S C L A I M E R : E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
ewa@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Eric Anderson) (08/05/90)
In article <3726@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > > My pet peeve about most CS curricula is that they train people to >be computer scientists, not professional software engineers; I am yet to >see a course of study which provides emphasis on the design and implementation >of production code. I used to feel the same way, but after four years of undergraduate and one year of graduate study in CS, I see this differently. The design of production code generally requires only simple CS knowledge: Data Structures (mostly) and a little bit of Algorithms and Operating Systems. Implementation requires discipline and good management skills. These are not specific to CS. Computer Science, rather, is the study of Languages, Operating Systems, Theory, Architecture, etc. This is where discoveries are made, this is where the science is done. When was the last "production coding" breakthrough that you have heard of? In short, (and overly-simplified), Computer Science is to Computer Programming what Civil Engineering is to Carpentry. Have you ever met anyone with a BA in Carpentry? Now before you pour on the flames, I should point out that I am the author of a nationally distributed program for the Mac. ("Great Gantt") I used only the simplest ideas from my CS education in writing this product. (And to Rich's credit, I used Symantec's Think Pascal... :-) Eric Anderson, Dept of CSE, UC San Diego ewa@cs.ucsd.edu
mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi (08/06/90)
In article <188@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>, siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes: > In article <2840.26b7eb6e@cc.helsinki.fi> mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > >>................. Just yesterday a teacher in my dept. rejected >>my suggestion that Word & Expressionist might be easier than TeX with > > This is a side issue from the point you were arguing, but TeX, on a > Mac or PC, with a good previewer, IMHO really CAN be easier than Word > & Expressionist, or similar WYSIWYG systems. > > Just for the record, with the current version of Textures on the Mac > you edit your source file using the Mac-like text editor built into > Textures, then hit CTRL-T to start typesetting. _Within a few > seconds_ the first typeset page appears in the preview window on the > screen. .. > In other words, it's pretty darn close to WYSIWYG. But the point I'd > really like to make is that as soon as the situation gets at all > complicated, so-called WYSIWYG really isn't WYSIWYG any more, and the > attempt at having WYSIWYG makes things worse, not better. .. > In a TeX source file if I see a line that says > > \subhed2{Section 3.1: Further Properties of WYSIWYG Systems} > > I can SEE immediately, not only that this is a level 2 subhead, and > what its contents are, but also what macro definition ("\subhed2"} I > have to jump to (with my text editor) to modify ALL the subheads at > that level. .. > My claim: At some level of complexity -- and not a very high level -- > WYSIWYG inherently fails; and a procedural or "markup" or coded style > of formatting like TeX is really easier -- especially when things are > as beautifully designed as TeX, and Textures, are. The point I was trying to make is that MOST OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO USE A COMPUTER, THEY ONLY WANT NEAT PAGES! CTRL-T, "source files", macros and procedures are "inhuman" concepts for them, unnecessary side steps from the main goal. Are we "professionals" force-feeding our perverse world view to users who consider US experts on what THEY want to get done with the computer? I thought Mac was revolutionary; seems we can force it to be just another computer.. -- Matti Nyk{nen CS Student at Helsinki U, Finland email: mnykanen@cc.helsinki.FI The best opinions available; get them while they're hot!
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/06/90)
----- In article <1990Aug6.172135.27287@midway.uchicago.edu>, I wrote: [...] >There are of course many academics who have led to the innovations we take for >granted today, but I personally admire someone like Bill Atkinson or Andy >Hertzfeld, who actually goes out and produces something useful as opposed to >the legions of CS MS's and PhD's, many of whom produce little besides academic >papers. I see the difference not so much as that between carpentry and civil >engineering, but rather as that between a film maker and a film critic: both >have their uses, but I know which I admire more: the one who creatively >produces. Just to clarify: I don't mean to put down anyone who has a BS or MS in CS; I feel certain that many of the people out there making cool new stuff for the Mac have gone this route. Rather, I meant to express some skepticism of the value of theoretical academic study in the "real world". Y'know, the kind of stufff PhD's study. :-> :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/07/90)
------ In article <12168@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ewa@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Eric Anderson) writes... >In article <3726@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: >> >> My pet peeve about most CS curricula is that they train people to >>be computer scientists, not professional software engineers; I am yet to >>see a course of study which provides emphasis on the design and implementation >>of production code. > >I used to feel the same way, but after four years of undergraduate and >one year of graduate study in CS, I see this differently. [description of what CS is] >In short, (and overly-simplified), Computer Science is to Computer Programming >what Civil Engineering is to Carpentry. Have you ever met anyone with a BA >in Carpentry? I don't have a degree in computer science, but I was at one point thinking about getting an MS in it. From what I could glean from CS catalogs (and from talking with the director of an MS program), CS classes consist oftwo things:: practical stuff which you could teach yourself on your own, and highly theoretical, mathematical/logical stuff (which you could probably learn on your own anyway). The former I can do myself, and the latter seems of less immediate importance to those who do not have their eyes set on the ivory tower. There are of course many academics who have led to the innovations we take for granted today, but I personally admire someone like Bill Atkinson or Andy Hertzfeld, who actually goes out and produces something useful as opposed to the legions of CS MS's and PhD's, many of whom produce little besides academic papers. I see the difference not so much as that between carpentry and civil engineering, but rather as that between a film maker and a film critic: both have their uses, but I know which I admire more: the one who creatively produces. For some interesting views on the diffence between "those who do" and "those who teach", read Steven Levy's "Hackers" (it's a great book in any case). Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
pete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) (08/07/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>In short, (and overly-simplified), Computer Science is to ComputerProgramming >>what Civil Engineering is to Carpentry. Have you ever met anyone with a BA >>in Carpentry? ... >There are of course many academics who have led to the innovations we take for >granted today, but I personally admire someone like Bill Atkinson or Andy >Hertzfeld, who actually goes out and produces something useful as opposed to >the legions of CS MS's and PhD's, many of whom produce little besides academic >papers. I see the difference not so much as that between carpentry and civil >engineering, but rather as that between a film maker and a film critic: both >have their uses, but I know which I admire more: the one who creatively >produces. Wow, was all I could say at first. Your analogy with the film critic is just so far off base that I have to say something. First, "ivory tower"-types in no way inhibit or constrain, or even comment on what "do'ers" such as Bill and Andy create. Second, Bill and Andy create with tools that "ivory tower"-types make possible. If you don't see the vital connection between basic research done in the last thirty years and tools such as the Macintosh or Hypercard, maybe carpentry really is the field for you. :-) Third, creativity is what basic research is all about. I'll grant you that much research is unimaginative and only incrementally better than what has come before, but the proportion of such noise has to be much much lower than the per centage of programmers who are uncreative. No one denies that Bill and Andy are very creative, but weren't the people that came up with the transister a bit more creative? The analogy with carpentry and civil engineering is apt. A carpenter can build a neat house, but it takes a civil engineer to come up with a new type of house. pete -- ============================================================================= Pete Keleher pete@titan.rice.edu =============================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/07/90)
------- In article <PETE.90Aug6142343@titan.rice.edu>, pete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) writes... > >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: [...] > >>There are of course many academics who have led to the innovations we take for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>granted today, but I personally admire someone like Bill Atkinson or Andy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [...] >First, "ivory tower"-types in no way inhibit or constrain, or even comment >on what "do'ers" such as Bill and Andy create. > >Second, Bill and Andy create with tools that "ivory tower"-types make >possible. If you don't see the vital connection between basic research done >in the last thirty years and tools such as the Macintosh or Hypercard, >maybe carpentry really is the field for you. :-) Hm. It might help you if you had read what I had said. I've helpfully underlined it above. Admittedly, what I originally wrote was overly general and simplistic, which is why I posted a followup explaining that I didn't mean to seem so pejorative in my assessment of academics/academia. Thanks, though, for your career counseling. My only advice to you is to read, think, and _then_ write. It would probably help you. > >Third, creativity is what basic research is all about. I'll grant you that >much research is unimaginative and only incrementally better than what has >come before, but the proportion of such noise has to be much much lower >than the per centage of programmers who are uncreative. I am not thoroughly familiar with CS academic research. I am fairly familiar with Business academic research. And I must say, much of _that_ seems fairly divorced from the real world. So perhaps my extrapolations were not entirely appropriate. > >No one denies that Bill and Andy are very creative, but weren't the people >that came up with the transister a bit more creative? The discovery of the transistor was perhaps more important, and perhaps those who did so were "geniuses". But more creative? Not in my opinion. >The analogy with carpentry and civil engineering is apt. A carpenter can >build a neat house, but it takes a civil engineer to come up with a new >type of house. So you're saying that you need a formal academic background to come up with truly original ideas in programming/CS? Well, that view should at least be popular with universities. It is not one that I subscribe to. Wasting net bandwidth on another flame war :-( , Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
finnegan@dhw68k.cts.com (Greg Finnegan) (08/07/90)
In article <3726@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > My pet peeve about most CS curricula is that they train people to >be computer scientists, not professional software engineers; I am yet to >see a course of study which provides emphasis on the design and implementation >of production code. Try the Univ. of CA, Irvine (I'm allowed to plug my alma). A couple years ago they were cranking out professional-ready Mac programmers left and right (I think there are still a handful at Claris, a bunch at Apple and at a few smaller software houses). I don't know if they are still teaching Mac programming principles now, but the guys that left during that time were willing, and more importantly, ready for commercial quality software projects (regardless of their "traditional" CS background). > > I started writing Mac code using Macintosh Pascal on a 512K >machine with two 400K floppy drives. Little did I know that I'd grow >up to do a version of Macintosh Pascal, and use a Mac II to do it... > >R. Boy, you had it easy! [In old croney accent] I remember when all I had was a 128K Mac running MacTerminal hooked up to a UNIX box at 300 baud and using SUMEX C :-) Greg. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Greg Finnegan "It worked just fine on my machine" uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!finnegan
dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) (08/08/90)
In <12168@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> ewa@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Eric Anderson) writes: >In short, (and overly-simplified), Computer Science is to Computer Programming >what Civil Engineering is to Carpentry. Have you ever met anyone with a BA >in Carpentry? I think a slightly more accurate (and slightly less condescending?) analogy is Physics to Civil Engineering.... Dave
jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE) (08/08/90)
In article <1990Aug6.174543.27956@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >----- >In article <1990Aug6.172135.27287@midway.uchicago.edu>, I wrote: |[...] |>There are of course many academics who have led to the innovations we take for |>granted today, but I personally admire someone like Bill Atkinson or Andy | |Just to clarify: I don't mean to put down anyone who has a BS or MS in CS; I |feel certain that many of the people out there making cool new stuff for the |Mac have gone this route. Rather, I meant to express some skepticism of the |value of theoretical academic study in the "real world". Y'know, the kind of |stufff PhD's study. :-> :-> | I'm tired of this thread - you want to talk practical? Look at compression algorithms: the underlying theory/algorithms were worked out by PhD types. Many error correcting codes can be viewed as sphere packing problems in N-space, which is fairly theoretical. I'm using bison/yacc/flex/lex on a project right now and my CS language theory study certainly helps there. Many self-taught programmers have big holes in their expertise and a lack of perspective in their world view. Knowing when to use the proper data structure is more useful than knowing that a certain sequence of instructions saves 2 machine cycles for some operation. And having a breadth of perspective has helped me in jobs as varied as VLSI CAD, commercial airplane avionics, writing special purpose compilers and assemblers, and microprocessor programming. By the way, my background in CS helped me appreciate the Mac OS for the excellent improvement that it is. Nor should you all denigrate UNIX, because for certain tasks it fits the job well, which is why I often use the MPW shell which gives me most of the best of UNIX and Mac. James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth Purdue, Bachelor of Science, Computer Science, '76
brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) (08/09/90)
In article <23506@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, anarch@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (The Anarch) writes: >In article <3726@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: >> My pet peeve about most CS curricula is that they train people to >>be computer scientists, not professional software engineers; I am yet to > >Whoa, that's a shocker! Really, what do you expect from a Computer Science >education but a computer scientist? Computer Science is an academic >discipline, and, like most academic disciplines, doesn't attempt to develop >skills that are readily applicable to non-academic environments. That's why >we have night courses and trade schools (ITT Technical Institue, anyone? :-) Wait just one dang moment! While I agree with you that most Computer Science is theoretical, I must say that the curriculae of different institutions vary widely -- even the backgrounds and experiences of two CS grads from the same university can be vastly different regarding practical experience. In my own experience, at the University of California at Irvine, there were many opportunities to gain experience with "real world" software development processes and techniques as an undergraduate. Some people took advantage of these opportunities, others did not. Then, in article <1990Aug6.220548.22689@dhw68k.cts.com> finnegan@dhw68k.cts.com (Greg Finnegan) writes: >Try the Univ. of CA, Irvine (I'm allowed to plug my alma). A couple years >ago they were cranking out professional-ready Mac programmers left and >right (I think there are still a handful at Claris, a bunch at Apple and >at a few smaller software houses). (Hello, Greg.) Well, since we've been mentioned... For several years at U.C. Irvine, there was a unique project course directed by Professor Thomas Standish. The goal was to develop accessible, engaging educational software. In the summer of '86, the Mac was the chosen machine, and about 20 students enrolled. Some of us had been programming the Mac alone, some had never touched one before; but we all picked topics of interest, formed project teams, shared knowledge, acquired hardware, and developed a culture. By spring of 1988, when I graduated, we had collectively built several useful applications: apps that graphically displayed many common sorting and searching algorithms (SearchSpace); a graphical, interactive paged memory management scheme (Flying Pages); a finite state automata construction kit (MacFSA); a digital circuit simulator (Digital Magic); a graphical, interactive compiler (HeapZone); and many more that I've forgotten. In the process, we all participated directly in the software production process: from design, implementation and management, through to production, manual printing and distribution. (On campus only in most cases, but through the Academic Courseware Exchange in others.) The software was used in the lower division Computer Science courses. Claris snagged about five of us before we'd even graduated. They were convinced that the work we had done was of professional calibre. In toto, AppleWorks GS, Claris CAD, FileMaker II & Pro, MacProject II, MacWrite II, and SmartForms all had CS grads on the teams, all of them very professional software engineers. ---- Greg again: >Boy, you had it easy! [In old croney accent] I remember when all I had >was a 128K Mac running MacTerminal hooked up to a UNIX box at 300 baud >and using SUMEX C :-) Yup! [Other crony scratches a graying, stubbled chin.] 'Member the Inside Mac Phonebook Edition? : CLARIS : ........:.................................................................... : : Brendan McCarthy : UUCP: brendan@claris.com : InterNet: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!brendan : : "We put our faith in those crimson nights, : Set sail in those turquoise days."
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (08/09/90)
Re: carpenters, film ritics, Civil engineers, and filmamakers:
Both analogies are flawed.
A better one must have three anyway.
One for the CS academic
One for the (possibly) CS-trained analyst/designer
One for production "business-report" coder.
Using carpentry as a similar place to start:
The production coder is a carpenter or bricklayer.
He/she can perform basic tasks, and may be shown how to do
different tasks, but generally doesn't see the whole picture.
The system designer/analyst type is like an architect.
They can perform all the basic tasks, allthough not each one
quite as well as the narrow specialist. They also must know
what is on the cutting edge of new techniques and materials,
while they have to understand the properties, usage, and
reasons behind these, they aren't interested in the details
(besides maybe a 1-time curiosity) of how it was proved that
concrete X actually does turn a nice blue when heated to the
right temparature
The CS academic is like a researcher at the concrete mill trying to
develop that nifty new cement that spray paint wipes off of.
They have to know all the little details of the insides of the
cement, but don't have to know what to do with it.It may be true
he/she doesn't know how to apply the cement, and may have no idea
that cement top floors with a wooden frame underneath is a bad
idea, but it doesn't matter - because all that matters is how
the cement is made and whether spray paint wipes off.
Saying CS training is useless unless one wants to be an academic is
ignoring the fact that the "architects" have to have some idea of
how cement is made.
Saying that the cement designers are responsible for the advances
that lead to better buildings is wrong also.
BOTH the cement designer and the architect are needed. One has the
overall creativity to think up new uses and how new tools may be
applied to them - the other has the focused drive to come up with
new tools that there isn't an immeadiate need for. Occasionally there's
a person who combines both into one.
BTW, my background (if you want to know how i'm slanted)
is EE dropout-> BS CS -> applied s/w h/w design for PhD's
so I've seen how it goes from a lot of angles.
--
Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ.
InterNet: Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu isr@rodan.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE resnick@lees.cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) (08/09/90)
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) writes: >Re: carpenters, film ritics, Civil engineers, and filmamakers: >One for the (possibly) CS-trained analyst/designer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [others deleted] >The system designer/analyst type is like an architect. > They can perform all the basic tasks, allthough not each one > quite as well as the narrow specialist. They also must know > what is on the cutting edge of new techniques and materials, > while they have to understand the properties, usage, and > reasons behind these, they aren't interested in the details > (besides maybe a 1-time curiosity) of how it was proved that > concrete X actually does turn a nice blue when heated to the > right temparature >-- >Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. >InterNet: Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu isr@rodan.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE And so the thread goes on..... I think Mike has brought us back to the original problem: the best "architects" (read programmer analyst/designers) that I have encountered are rarely if ever CS-trained, and those that have been trained that way are rarely good programmers due to that training. Granted the brick layers need not be CS-trained and the academics should be. The contention of the side of the argument that I have been on throughout this thread is that the architects needn't (maybe shouldn't) be CS- trained either. CS-training, at least in the big places that I have seen, is limited to idealized engineering, where all we care about is how fast the code runs and how nifty the mechanism is that it is using. People in this part of the field still do not understand the importance of portable, readable, pretty, or modifiable code. Inevitably, it is the best brick layers who learn how to do this and then become architects, or it is those of us who came in from the outside. CS-training is great for theoretical problems in CS, but I would never want to get the code for the implementation of their solutions from the CS people themselves. (No flames.....there are lots of CS people who are great architects and coders; I just don't think that they learned a lick of it in CS classes.) [Strange thing......CS people hate VAX/VMS, Macintosh, and generally Pascal programming. ("Strong typing is for weak minds" and "Why should I deal with System service calls when I can do it all myself in assembler?" come to mind). Philosophers and people who have had to fix other people's code know why!] pr - BA in Biology, BA in philosphy, MA in The Program in Philosophy and Computer and Systems Sciences (PACSS), PhD student in Philosophy. (since everyone else is giving their credits......) -- Pete Resnick (...so what is a mojo, and why would one be rising?) Graduate assistant - Philosophy Department, Gregory Hall, UIUC System manager - Cognitive Science Group, Beckman Institute, UIUC Internet/ARPAnet/EDUnet : resnick@kant.cogsci.uiuc.edu BITNET (if no other way) : FREE0285@UIUCVMD
escher@Apple.COM (Michael Crawford) (08/09/90)
Perhaps we should let this thread die; it started out good but has descended into squabbling. However, I have one point to make: In article <1990Aug8.233604.26207@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> resnick@lees.cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) writes: >portable, readable, pretty, or modifiable code. Inevitably, it is the >best brick layers who learn how to do this and then become architects, >or it is those of us who came in from the outside. CS-training is >great for theoretical problems in CS, but I would never want to get >the code for the implementation of their solutions from the CS people >themselves. My partner in Oddball Enterprises, Chuck Lundquist, is a Carpenter. He attended the School of Hard Knocks (started work at 15). He has built houses that cost up to $5,000,000, knows how to do everything -- plumbing, bricklaying, siding, framing, drywall. He often complains that architects design structures that cannot be built; it is often up to the carpenter to make corrections in the design as he goes, or get the architect to correct it. He has said many times that the best architects got their start in the trades; one can tell a plan that was drawn by a former carpenter as it is easy to build. He also says that architects rarely actually visit the houses they design. When they do they are often quite shocked to see their artistic concept transformed into a reality. They view their plans as creative works, and may not consider certain practical concepts as whether the walls can hang together. I got my start in programming rather the way Chuck got his in construction; by being dropped into the harsh real working world and struggling to survive; this has made us very tenacious and practical workers. However, the reason both of us have gotten beyond the bottom rung of the ladder is that we have both taken the time and effort to actually learn the underlying principles of what we do. A real programmer is one who has been in the trenches, and has also studied the books. I am personally quite skeptical of most computer science curricula; the graduates who are prepared to work in the industry usually got their practical experience on their own time while in school; however, one who just knows how to code without knowing the underlying principles is doomed to forever be buried in a windowless cube in a basement office somewhere, writing boring code. -- Michael D. Crawford Oddball Enterprises Consulting for Apple Computer Inc. 606 Modesto Avenue escher@apple.com Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Applelink: escher@apple.com@INTERNET# oddball!mike@ucscc.ucsc.edu The opinions expressed here are solely my own. alias make '/bin/make & rn'
es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg) (08/09/90)
(random post from someone who currently is a CS major)
in looking at the current carpenter comparison, I'd like to put my $.02 in.
the specialist: can lay bricks like you wouldn't believe, but is fairly clued
out on how the house is going to stand up. Kinda like having some hacker
who can do wonders with the control manager -- she can create controls that
amaze, but don't ask her to play with serial communications.
the architect: knows how to make a neat house, and can probably do a few things
that a specialist can -- maybe cut wood & lay some bricks, but don't look at
him for electircal work. On the other side, we have the software engineer,
who knows how to make a good program, and can probably do files & windows, but
wants someone else to do lists & serial communications.
The cement-maker: the dude who makes the cool cement which will last longer &
be stronger than ever. Vs the research CS, who makes parallel (sp?) machines
& creates 68090s and the like. Doesn't care much for what it's used for, just
so long as it's fast.
now, in looking at this, I think I've just described three different majors:
hacking, software engineering, & cs research. Personally, from what I've seen
here (which, I'll admit, is hardly anything), I think they can be one in the
same -- people can have clues on how to bring a program together with many
parts, go into low-level stuff, and still be able to research into new stuff.
...they call me fluppie...
\ ARPA: es2q@andrew.cmu.edu Fido: 129/107 BBS: Mac @ Night (412) 268-5534 /
\ GEnie: E.SELBERG Delphi: LORDERIK CIS: 71470,2127 MacList: 6009/1 /mil@mendel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Maria I. Lasaga) (08/09/90)
The carpenter/architect analogy doesn't work very well, for many reasons already given. Here's another: I don't think many architects could actually build a house they have designed if a carpenter weren't available. The same is not true of students with degrees in CS. They can still program, no?! Would a better analogy be an untrained artist versus one taught by an established academy of the arts? I find this discussion about the usefulness of a graduate degree very interesting. Out of curiousity, what is the average starting salary of a programmer with a CS degree these days? What about that of a programmer without a degree? Do companies make a distinction? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Lasaga Dept. of Psychology Gilmer Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, Va 22901 mil@virginia.bitnet ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) (08/09/90)
In article <2856.26bd2bf0@cc.helsinki.fi> mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <188@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>, siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes: >> [Lovingly about TeX & TeX-based writing, concluding with...] >> WYSIWYG inherently fails; and a procedural or "markup" or coded style >> of formatting like TeX is really easier -- especially when things are >> as beautifully designed as TeX, and Textures, are. > [Then Matti replies...] >The point I was trying to make is that MOST OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO >USE A COMPUTER, THEY ONLY WANT NEAT PAGES! CTRL-T, "source files", >macros and procedures are "inhuman" concepts for them, unnecessary side >steps from the main goal. Are we "professionals" force-feeding our >perverse world view to users who consider US experts on what THEY want >to get done with the computer? I thought Mac was revolutionary; seems we can >force it to be just another computer.. Sorry, I just couldn't resist a strong 'here, here' for Matti! *Why* do TeX fans not get this point? 'CS majors' can keep TeX if they are happy, but wordprocessing is not *only* done by CS majors. (By CS majors I'm trying to imply 'those people that probably enjoy programming at the same time as they're trying to write English.) My secretary does not want to program - she wants to write a nicely formatted letter or report. Same for my manager, same for me. I'll leave programming to the rest of my job, thanks very much. Now if Word/Nisus/etc could output in TeX, we'd all be happy, wouldn't we? :-) Aren't there mega bucks in this idea (not new!)? =========================================================================== Stewart Tansley | STC Technology Ltd | 'Be cool, or be +44 279 29531 x2763 | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK | cast out...' dswt@stl.stc.co.uk | ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dswt | Subdivisions, Rush =========================================================================== 'You know how that rabbit feels - going under your spinning wheels...' ===========================================================================
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (08/09/90)
In article <11170@claris.com> brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) writes: > >Yup! [Other crony scratches a graying, stubbled chin.] 'Member the Inside Mac >Phonebook Edition? Gad...now you really make me feel old since I remember the loose-leaf (3-hole punched) version and the periodic software updates that came out if you sent Apple, what was it, about $150? This predates the certified programmer stuff as it was in '84'-'85. Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (908-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (08/10/90)
In article <25994@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >In article <11170@claris.com> brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) writes: >> >>Yup! [Other crony scratches a graying, stubbled chin.] 'Member the Inside Mac >>Phonebook Edition? > >Gad...now you really make me feel old since I remember the loose-leaf (3-hole >punched) version and the periodic software updates that came out if you sent >Apple, what was it, about $150? This predates the certified programmer stuff >as it was in '84'-'85. You are losing your memory old man :-). There was a Certified Developer and a Registered Developer program back around the time of the loose-leaf edition. I especially loved some of the comments on the Mac hardware in that edition-- "The Mac will always have....an internal 840K floppy drive...This is the only configuration-- the consistency of the Mac interface depends on the consistency of its hardware" (not really a quote, paraphrased from memory) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? Hey! Bush has NO LIPS!
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug9.040707.15339@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mil@mendel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Maria I. Lasaga) writes: > I find this discussion about the usefulness of a graduate degree > very interesting. Out of curiousity, what is the average starting salary > of a programmer with a CS degree these days? What about that of > a programmer without a degree? Do companies make a distinction? Finally, someone on this thread with a question that's more than just academic! (1/2 :-) It does definitely vary by company--Apple, for example, has a long-standing reputation for being concerned with results over credentials, although most of our "wanted" ads lately have listed requirements (or at least "desirables") for academic credentials. I have a two-year degree that I acquired because I knew a piece of paper would be useful in getting my foot in the door. Once my foot is in a door, I insist on being accepted on the merits of my work, not on the perceived value of the piece of paper. I'm afraid that I can't answer the salary question in general because I don't know, and I can't answer it in specifics because, of course, it's company confidential information. I can offer my personal opinion that as an engineer in Macintosh Developer Technical Support who had an industry reputation already (from being published in MacTutor and from my previous work at ICOM Simulations, Inc.), I'm paid well. No complaints at all. One point that I feel that this thread has been missing is the fact that education is an ongoing event. There is never a point at which you complete your learning, someone hands you a piece of paper, and you know everything about the subject that you will ever need to know. I got into computer programming precisely because I knew that it would never become boring--there will always be new developments to keep track of and new methodologies, languages, algorithms, data structures, etc. to play with and learn to apply in the right places. Another slice of personal opinion: most programmers that I know don't have a good enough grasp of language semantics. A good example of this problem is the war as to whether Pascal or C is the "better" language. Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and C; the arguments are almost exclusively about syntax. I believe that anyone who chooses to use a language for a particular task because of its syntax is selecting the language for the wrong reason. I also believe that one of the reasons that other types of languages haven't quite made it into the mainstream is because many of them do have different semantics than the familiar old block-structured procedural languages that we all know and love. Then again, maybe it's just me. :-) __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (08/10/90)
In article <3297@stl.stc.co.uk> dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) writes: > [Then Matti replies...] > >The point I was trying to make is that MOST OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO > >USE A COMPUTER, THEY ONLY WANT NEAT PAGES! CTRL-T, "source files", > >macros and procedures are "inhuman" concepts for them, unnecessary side > >steps from the main goal. Are we "professionals" force-feeding our > >perverse world view to users who consider US experts on what THEY want > >to get done with the computer? I thought Mac was revolutionary; seems we can > >force it to be just another computer.. > > Sorry, I just couldn't resist a strong 'here, here' for Matti! *Why* do TeX > fans not get this point? 'CS majors' can keep TeX if they are happy, but > wordprocessing is not *only* done by CS majors. (By CS majors I'm trying to > imply 'those people that probably enjoy programming at the same time as they're > trying to write English.) > > My secretary does not want to program - she wants to write a nicely formatted > letter or report. Same for my manager, same for me. I'll leave programming to > the rest of my job, thanks very much. > > Now if Word/Nisus/etc could output in TeX, we'd all be happy, wouldn't we? :-) > Aren't there mega bucks in this idea (not new!)? Probably not, as the whole point behind TeX and MetaFont is to allow excruciating, pinpoint control over the layout--that is, precision far beyond what the human machine (brain, nervous system, musculature) is capable of. To output TeX from a WYSIWYG word processor would really only be useful if you intended to hand-tweak the resulting TeX output, which would tend to defeat the purpose, IMHO. __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
daw@cbnewsh.att.com (David Wolverton) (08/10/90)
In article <11170@claris.com>, brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) writes: > In article <23506@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, anarch@eleazar.dartmouth.edu > (The Anarch) writes: > Well, since we've been mentioned... For several years at U.C. Irvine, there > was a unique project course directed by Professor Thomas Standish. The goal > was to develop accessible, engaging educational software. In the summer of > '86, the Mac was the chosen machine, and about 20 students enrolled. Some of > us had been programming the Mac alone, some had never touched one before; but > we all picked topics of interest, formed project teams, shared knowledge, > acquired hardware, and developed a culture. <list of good courseware deleted> Well, gee, I remember in the Spring of _'84_ when I was a senior in his special projects class. Dr. Standish had just purchased a Mac 128 and imagewriter with his own (not the universities') money and was really "hot to trot" to develop courseware with it. I'm glad to hear That his idea "flew" and you guys were able to do some neat projects with Macs at UCI. Dave Wolverton ('84) daw@attunix.att.com
topping@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (brian e topping) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug9.172539.1318@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >...... >I especially loved some of the comments on the Mac hardware in that edition-- >"The Mac will always have....an internal 840K floppy drive...This is the >only configuration-- the consistency of the Mac interface depends on the >consistency of its hardware" I got a kick out of the real meaning of the 'ds' in front of the System Errors.... they are hardly "Dire Straights" as Chernicoff (sp?) writes in his Intro Mac books >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu >][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? > Hey! Bush has NO LIPS! Brian Topping topping@cis.ohio-state.edu
dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) (08/10/90)
In <9646@goofy.Apple.COM> escher@Apple.COM (Michael Crawford) writes: >He often complains that architects design structures that cannot be built; it >is often up to the carpenter to make corrections in the design as he goes, >or get the architect to correct it. >He has said many times that the best architects got their start in the trades; >one can tell a plan that was drawn by a former carpenter as it is easy to >build. A major factor in the extra time and money that it took to build the Sydney Opera House was the architect's insistence that the distinctive roof be structurally self-supporting. Techniques already existed for building a facade that shape, but it took considerable effort to invent the necessary techniques to do it the architect's way.... Dave
ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) (08/10/90)
In <9649@goofy.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) says "Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and C". Untrue. There are some important ones. It's true that the standard Mac Pascal dialect easily matches C in its ability to do low-level stuff. But Pascal also has some high-level features that have no C equivalent. Lawrence D'Oliveiro fone: +64-71-562-889 Computer Services Dept fax: +64-71-384-066 University of Waikato electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz Hamilton, New Zealand 37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+12:00 To someone with a hammer and a screwdriver, every problem looks like a nail with threads.
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (08/11/90)
In article <1203.26c2f334@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes: > In <9649@goofy.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) says > "Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and C". > > Untrue. There are some important ones. It's true that the standard > Mac Pascal dialect easily matches C in its ability to do low-level > stuff. But Pascal also has some high-level features that have no C > equivalent. Semantic features or syntactic features? And what are they? __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
freeman@argosy.UUCP (Jay R. Freeman) (08/11/90)
In article <9698@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: >Semantic features or syntactic features? And what are they? Well, Pascal's hierarchical lexical scoping of variable bindings is certainly different from C's scoping rules. -- Jay Freeman <canonical disclaimer -- I speak only for myself>
chi@tybalt.caltech.edu (Curt Hagenlocher) (08/11/90)
In article <9698@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: >In article <1203.26c2f334@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence >D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes: >> In <9649@goofy.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) says >> "Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and >C". >> >> Untrue. There are some important ones. It's true that the standard >> Mac Pascal dialect easily matches C in its ability to do low-level >> stuff. But Pascal also has some high-level features that have no C >> equivalent. > >Semantic features or syntactic features? And what are they? The ability to nest procedures in Pascal is something to which nothing in C is analagous, or even close. --- chi@tybalt.caltech.edu Curt Hagenlocher Disclaimer: Pascal? I don't know Pascal...
finnegan@dhw68k.cts.com (Greg Finnegan) (08/13/90)
>Knowing when to use the proper data >structure is more useful than knowing that a certain sequence of >instructions saves 2 machine cycles for some operation. > >James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth This is not meant as a slam towards you or your employer (well, maybe at one time it might have been against your employer :-). I think this is an odd position considering that my entire interview process at Microsoft consisted of little tests (like how to save 2 cycles). My favorite (that I couldn't sovle without prompting from my interviewer) was how to count the number of bytes in a word (knee-jerk response was for i = 1 to n coutem; -- the correct [um, optimized] answer is some sort of AND and XOR or ROTx combination which I can never remember unless I sit down and figure it out all over again). Not once was I asked a question about how I might approach a difficult programming problem (or the methods/algorithms I had used on previous projects). Alas, we decided that there were too many diffences in our philosophies (read: I could not stomach the fact that I would have to do s/w dev. on a 386 for the Mac) Greg. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Greg Finnegan "It worked just fine on my machine" uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!finnegan
tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (08/13/90)
In article <9698@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: >In article <1203.26c2f334@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence >D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes: >> In <9649@goofy.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) says >> "Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and >C". >> Untrue. There are some important ones. It's true that the standard >Semantic features or syntactic features? And what are they? I guess it depends on what you mean by Pascal. If you stick to the language described by Wirth and ignore any extensions (I'm not familiar with ANSI) there are some significant differnces. Initialisation of data structures at compile-time. Type casts. (Pascal goes out of its way to try and stop these.) No static variables. No 'break' or 'continue' statements. No guaranteed order of evaluation for logical operators. No default for 'case'. No bit operators. No macro processor. Of course a CS type (like myself) might be tempted to argue that both languages are computationally equivalent. But then as a programmer I'd be tempted to tell a CS type that a language with a list of faults like the ones listed above isn't worth using for systems programming :-) Tony -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk If a man among you has no sin upon his hand Let him throw a stone at me for playing in the band.
drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) (08/13/90)
chi@tybalt.caltech.edu (Curt Hagenlocher) writes: >In article <9698@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: >>In article <1203.26c2f334@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence >>D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes: >>> In <9649@goofy.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) says >>> "Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and >>C". >>> >>> Untrue. There are some important ones. It's true that the standard >>> Mac Pascal dialect easily matches C in its ability to do low-level >>> stuff. But Pascal also has some high-level features that have no C >>> equivalent. >> >>Semantic features or syntactic features? And what are they? >The ability to nest procedures in Pascal is something to which >nothing in C is analagous, or even close. What about the ability in C to declare variables within blocks in the midst of your code? This gives them scoping during only that block and enclosed blocks. I would think that this is pretty darn close. As Chewy points out, this is a syntactic rather than semantic difference between the languages. See the following for an example: short foo(short a, short b) { long bar; bar = a+b; { long blech; blech = bar/a; } /* blech is no longer visible */ return (a/b); } -- Dennis Cohen Claris Corp. **************************************************** Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (08/14/90)
In article <5649@castle.ed.ac.uk>, tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > In article <9698@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > >In article <1203.26c2f334@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence > >D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes: > >> In <9649@goofy.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) says > >> "Semantically, there are no significant differences between Pascal and > >C". > > >> Untrue. There are some important ones. It's true that the standard > > >Semantic features or syntactic features? And what are they? > > I guess it depends on what you mean by Pascal. If you stick to > the language described by Wirth and ignore any extensions (I'm not > familiar with ANSI) there are some significant differnces. > > Initialisation of data structures at compile-time. > Type casts. (Pascal goes out of its way to try and stop these.) > No static variables. > No 'break' or 'continue' statements. > No guaranteed order of evaluation for logical operators. > No default for 'case'. > No bit operators. > No macro processor. > > Of course a CS type (like myself) might be tempted to argue that both > languages are computationally equivalent. But then as a programmer I'd > be tempted to tell a CS type that a language with a list of faults like > the ones listed above isn't worth using for systems programming :-) "Faults"? Depends on your point of view. Was Pascal intended to be used for systems programming? Wasn't this why Wirth then moved on to Modula-2? By the way, Pascal _does_ have bit operations (I believe that's what Wirth intended sets to be for). Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (08/14/90)
In article <1990Aug13.190518.14696@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >In article <5649@castle.ed.ac.uk>, tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: >"Faults"? Depends on your point of view. Was Pascal intended to be used for >systems programming? Wasn't this why Wirth then moved on to Modula-2? By the >way, Pascal _does_ have bit operations (I believe that's what Wirth intended >sets to be for). I guess I should have said 'these are serious weaknesses in a systems programming language.' As you so rightly point out Pascal was never intended to be such a thing. The versions of Pascal I've seen for systems programming have had significant extensions which address these problems. I guess at the end of the day programmers should use the language they are most comfortable with. Tony. p.s. Using sets for bit operations is a vile hack. -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk If a man among you has no sin upon his hand Let him throw a stone at me for playing in the band.
gstein@oracle.com (Greg Stein) (08/15/90)
In article <11170@claris.com> brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) writes: > In article <1990Aug6.220548.22689@dhw68k.cts.com> finnegan@dhw68k.cts.com > > In article <3726@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > > > I started writing Mac code using Macintosh Pascal on a 512K > > > machine with two 400K floppy drives. Little did I know that I'd grow > > > up to do a version of Macintosh Pascal, and use a Mac II to do it... > > Boy, you had it easy! [In old croney accent] I remember when all I had > > was a 128K Mac running MacTerminal hooked up to a UNIX box at 300 baud > > and using SUMEX C :-) > > Yup! [Other crony scratches a graying, stubbled chin.] 'Member the Inside Mac > Phonebook Edition? hmph. [another crony here] heck, I worked on a Lisa and sent my files to the 128K thru the serial port to a capture program. Sumex wasn't even heard of, let alone MacTerminal. Inside Mac? I worked from the 3-ring binder set and was *happy* when the Phonebook edition finally was printed... I wrote Rascal (remember that anyone?) to run in a measly 128K machine. Heck, the system takes more than that now! Those were the days. -- Greg Stein -- This posting bears no relation to my employer Arpa: gstein%oracle.uucp@apple.com UUCP: ..!{uunet,apple}!oracle!gstein
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (08/15/90)
In article <GSTEIN.90Aug14200401@hqsun4.oracle.com> gstein@oracle.com (Greg Stein) writes: >In article <11170@claris.com> brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) writes: [lots of old crony stories] > >Inside Mac? I worked from the 3-ring binder set and was *happy* when >the Phonebook edition finally was printed... > >I wrote Rascal (remember that anyone?) to run in a measly 128K >machine. Heck, the system takes more than that now! Remember MacDB? One of the few GOOD things from the good old days. A two machine debugger was a great idea-- I was able to do lots of productive work (with MDS Asm and later MegaMax C) with that (the old MacsBugs never seemed to be able to work after a crash) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?