st122@sdcc12.UUCP (st122) (09/20/86)
Tom, I cannot respond to your wonderful mail because I can't get back down the same path you send mail to me. Suffice it to say that your replies were very funny. Thank you for making my whole day and to some degree proving a point to my credit! You have been a text book example of a person I have been illustrating in my book in chapter 3, right vs wrong (a general person, not a real one, although you came pretty close to the generality) and it's nice to see my theory of American culture (well actually just an observation) prove itself in reality! The chapter concerns itself with the need for people to justify what they have done, what they are doing, and why they have done and are doing what they do (even if what they are doing or have done is a waste of time or unethical - unethical doesn't apply to you). Classic, classic, classic.... Thanks again, Frank Bellucci disclaimers for any writing errors, this is not edited.
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (09/21/86)
In article <699@sdcc12.UUCP>, st122@sdcc12.UUCP (st122) writes: > Tom, I cannot respond to your wonderful mail because I > can't get back down the same path you send mail to me. Suffice > it to say that your replies were very funny. Thank you > for making my whole day and to some degree proving a point > to my credit! You have been a text book example of > a person I have been illustrating in my book in chapter 3, > right vs wrong (a general person, not a real one, although > you came pretty close to the generality) and it's nice to > see my theory of American culture (well actually just an > observation) prove itself in reality! The chapter concerns > itself with the need for people to justify what they have > done, what they are doing, and why they have done and are > doing what they do (even if what they are doing or have > done is a waste of time or unethical - unethical doesn't > apply to you). > Classic, classic, classic.... I love it. Frank has taken my defense of advanced theoretical studies in a "Computer Sciences" curriculum and turned it into an attack on programmers. Now, he asserts that I am a classic example of someone justifying my past or present actions. 1) Frank, I have not (intentionally, in any case) denigrated the art of programming, nor those who would practice it as a profession. I admire good programmers and good programming. I have merely pointed out that the training needed to be a good programmer is *NOT* the same as the training needed to be a (good) COmputer Scientist. You can rant and rave all you like about people without fomral training who have developed good software, or succeeded in the commerical software market, it doesn't change my point at all. Without the theoretical foundations laid by Computer Scientists (and their associates, mathematicians and EEs) the "programmers" wouldn't have anything to work with. It remains the theoreticians who lead the way in the development of new computing technology and methodology. 2) I do not have a degree in computer science, or any other discipline. I would very much like to finish my degree in CS, if I could but afford to go to school. I am defending nothing but a concept. Why the dogmatic insistence that because things have worked out for you in a gicen fashion, this fashion is therefore the only acceptable approach? Why denigrate those who are interested in the theoretical aspects of computing? If you will pardon the observation, I would suggest that your attitude appears to be compensatory. You are extremely defensive about not having a degree, and you seem to feel a strong need to denigrate those that have or are persuing such degrees. Classic, truly classic. Note: I believe that programmers *AND* computer scientists can do a *BETTER* job if they have at least a passing familiarity with hardware considerations. Yes, a programmer can write reasonable software without such familiarity, and for many applications this is acceptable. But the programmer who has a familiarty with hardware considerations is more flexible, and in a better position not only to produce superior software for those applications which benefit from such knowledge, but is in a better position to take advantage of career opportunities because of it. COmputer scientists deal frequently with the application of hardware, and so a familiarity with hardware realities is virtually essential to them. It would seem, Frank, that you are arguing that we should turn out inferior programmers, ill equipped to produce the wide range of hardware dependent software we will be needing, in order to simplify the curriculum for a few lazy, shortsighted individuals. It would further seem that you are arguing that there is no point in training any more computer scientists, because you programmers can take it from here. (I *WISH* I could put a (-: on that!) It is essential that we stop worrying about whether or not the reality of the computing world is elitist or not, and deal with the necessity of training highly skilled programmers, *AND* highly skilled computer scientists. This requires separate curricula, if it is to be accomplished reasonably. The details of those curricula are open to discussion, but they remain a separate issue, as I see it. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (09/21/86)
I apologize to everyone, but the more I thought about it, the more irked I got. The follwing is a reply to a letter I received from Frank Bellucci. Mr. Bellucci's comments are denoted by >, mine are not. I just thought others might want to know more about Mr. Bellucci's frame of reference. > You just overload me with incredible insight! Thanks for straightening > me out! It's so great to see such a typical letter here in my box from > such a typical "theoretician"! > > You want to segregate society into you "bright" people and, of course, > those "stupid" programmers. That is *YOUR* statement, not mine. It doesn't even bear close resemblence to anything *I'VE* said. > I've got nothing against intelligent, computer philosophers, one of > which I am. I have only got something against "degreed theoreticians" > who think they are God's gift to the earth or something. Albert > Einstein flunked out of school, but this man was bright enough to > to discover amazing ideas without Harvard, Yale, or UCSD's EE department > or wherever you graduated from. The president of ADC, a multi-billion Funny, I don't recall claiming to be a graduate, or even a student, in a CS program. I am, in fact, not degreed in any field. I would like to complete my degree in CS someday, should I ever have both the time and the money. > dollar company, has only a high school degree. Steve Wasnyak (the > spelling is terrible, I know, I guess I'm stupid!) of Apple computer > had not even graduated before his fame. Countless others are in > the same boat. > > The point is, and you obviously missed it, is that you can be an > incredible computer scientist in the field by learning on your > own. You don't have to go to school to learn it. The best On the contrary, one cannot be a computer scientist at all without studying the theory of computation, higher mathematics, and some hardware, BY DEFINITION. Admittedly, it is possible for someone to study these topics without the benefit of a university. But to claim to be a computer scientist without having studied these topics is patently ridiculous. What you *MEAN* to say is that it is possible to be an incredible PROGRAMMER by learning on one's own. Indeed, this is true, though *MOST* people would be better advised to seek the assistance of a good programming school. > people I have ever met in the field agree. Shalom Halevy of > TRE electronics (PHD radar physics) told me "Frank, don't bother > getting advanced degrees. You are just wasting your time. You'll > never catch up to what you could have done on the job". Shalom > was one of the few theoreticians, along with Dr. Kenneth Bowles > of Telesoft, inc and designer of the UCSD p-system, who are not > among the "elitists" who think we should people without degrees > in the toilet because, without a degree, they are obviously > "stupid". (above correction: we should 'put' people ...) I don't make any such claims. I have made no typification of non-degreed persons as "stupid" (or in any other way inferior). Your self-doubt exhibits itself and betrays you. All *I* said was that the world needs both programmers *AND* computer scientists, and that within the context of the educational systems as they exist, that these two groups should be trained differently, as befits their differing roles in the computing world. > In conclusion, your letter was boring. I hope you achieve your > little segregated society of "programmers" and "degreed computer > theorists." A little power and ego mania trip now and then > is good for everybody I guess...... I don't know where (except for your vivid and twisted imagination) you keep coming up with these gems. Are you *SERIOUSLY* suggesting that those who would research the leading edge of theoretical computing should be trained in exactly the same fashion as those who would produce working software applications? Are you seriously suggesting that the world has no use for theoreticians? Are you seriously suggesting that *ALL* theoreticians are ego maniacs? You truly are a strange individual, Frank. I do note that you are associated with a university. Why is that, Frank? Aren't you afraid someone will accuse you of being an elitist? Won't those pesky academicians pollute your brain with useless learning and knowledge? Golly, Frank, you seem to be a hypocrite, on top of it all. I personally find it extremely difficult to believe much of anything you claim to have accomplished, friend. Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. And yes, that *DOES* prove something: programming, among other things, is the art of stating carefully devised algorithms in precisely tailored language in order to unambiguously instruct the machine to cause specifically delineated operations over chosen sets of data. If you can't even communicate effectively and unambiguously in your native language, how can you expect anyone to believe that you can successfully specify, implement and verify any non-trivial computer program? Moreover, you seem (on the basis of the postings and letters from you that *I* have read) incapable of maintaining a coherent pattern of thought, of stating a proposal or question in a coherent and logical fashion, and of analyzing even simple English for content. In other words, you are, or would appear to be, sir, a fraud. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)