arl@mb2c.UUCP (06/09/83)
Real Programmers Don't Read Fiche
ian@utcsstat.UUCP (06/09/83)
Real programmers don't read manuals, they figure out how the program works by adb-ing it. (adb=ddt for you YAMOS fans).
jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (06/09/83)
Real programmers don't read ANY article in BYTE!! I just read the ads.
lgondor@utcsrgv.UUCP (Les Gondor) (06/09/83)
Real Programmers patch binaries rather than recompile.
rconn%brl@sri-unix.UUCP (06/10/83)
From: Rick Conn <rconn@brl> There are articles in BYTE? I hadn't noticed!
jlw@ariel.UUCP (06/11/83)
Real programmers punch up their object decks using 029 multipunch. (That is for production decks; test runs are entered directly with the engineer's console switches; btw ODT systems are for sissies)
goldfarb.ucf-cs%rand-relay@sri-unix.UUCP (06/11/83)
What the hell are all these 'real programmers' doing submitting news articles? They should be off in some corner hacking FORTRAN.
ron%brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (06/11/83)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> But real programmers are on every mailing list there is and spend the first six hours of each 18 hour workday reading their mail and sending off-hand suggestions to Unix-Wizards and Info-Micro, and writing page long editorials for SF-Lovers, Poly-Sci, and ArmsD. -Ron
steve%brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (06/11/83)
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@brl-bmd> What the hell are all these 'real programmers' doing submitting news articles? They should be off in some corner hacking FORTRAN. They are. Real programmers can write FORTRAN in any language - even English.
paulsc@tekecs.UUCP (06/12/83)
Real Programmers don't go for all the overhead of patching binaries, Real Programmers patch memory directly.
brian@sdcsvax.UUCP (06/12/83)
Real programmers don't read the articles in Byte... They just read the ads... Are there any articles in Byte? Sure are a lot of ads!
SMH@SRI-KL.ARPA (06/13/83)
From: Scott M. Hinnrichs <SMH@SRI-KL.ARPA> Ron, confessions to INFO-PSYCHOANALYSIS, please. Thanks, Scott -------
SHULMAN@RUTGERS.ARPA (06/15/83)
From: Jeffrey Shulman <SHULMAN@RUTGERS.ARPA> Real Programmers do AI in assembly language. Real Programmers do number crunching in InterLisp on a Z-80 with 4K bytes memory. Real Lisp Programmers never use SETx or PROGx and rely totally on side effects. Jeff -------
KLUDGE%mit-mc@sri-unix.UUCP (06/23/83)
From: "James J. Frimmel,Jr." <KLUDGE@mit-mc> Real programmers don't need compilers and assemblers; they think and program in machine code. (* rumor has it that good programmers use hex (4-star), fair programmers use octal (3rd rate), and poor programmers use quadal (2-bit hackers). <<<jf>>>
greep%su-dsn@sri-unix.UUCP (07/01/83)
Most of you people making cracks about people patching machine language and all that probably thought it was a joke, but when I worked for the Air Force, they did that so often they had a special coding form for it. (They had a whole room full of forms -- about half of them seemed to be coding forms of one kind or another.) They also not only still used plugboard- programmable machines (would you call that "firmware"?), they still taught people to program them. There was one old-timer there whose most recent experience consisted of machine language programming (no assemblers then) on a Univac I. He claimed his job was keeping up with advances in computers. By the way, this was in the 1970s, not the 1950s.
kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (08/10/83)
Real Programmers don't read manuals: Real Programmers don't use those cute, user-friendly manuals in their little slip cases that are beginning to come with all personal computers. They like the solid sensible feeling of big blue 3-ring binders full of indecipherable option lists and obscure instructions. [I just found out I am a 'Real Programmer'] Kurt Guntheroth John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/11/83)
Real Lisp Hackers never use manuals, they consult the system source code, preparatory to modifying it.... stan the leprechaun hacker ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs) (ps actually this is serious - most lisp packages have only the most rudimentary manuals, and some have all the documentation at the end of the source file. One version of a loop macro package had some documentation (at the end of the source file) that started out Loop macro blathering. This doc is totally wrong. Comments, etc to.... and then later one of the options had the explanation This is strange, I'm not sure what it really does. )
RG.JMTURN%MIT-OZ@mit-mc@sri-unix.UUCP (08/20/83)
ring.
This doc is totally wrong. Comments, etc to....
and then later one of the options had the explanation
This is strange, I'm not sure what it really does.
)
Actually, this is dependant on what kind of program you are talking
about. Several times, I've produce a quick hack for in-house use
(the kind of use where you can TELL the person how to use it, and
where the bugs are), just to have a customer beg for it on hands
and knees. In some ways, the LISP-using community is the biggest beta-test
site in the world. Of course, there are real released packages, and
they have documentation and readable code (we have a software review
committee to make sure).
Of course, even the worst LISP code usually has self-documenting
symbol and function names.
James
LMI