mirror of
https://github.com/opsxcq/mirror-textfiles.com.git
synced 2025-08-31 04:09:54 +02:00
72 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
72 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
Real Computer Scientists Don't Write Code
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists don't write code. They occasionally tinker with
|
||
'programming systems', but those are so high level that they hardly count (and
|
||
rarely count accurately; precision is for applications.)
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists don't comment their code. The identifiers are so long
|
||
they can't afford the disk space.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists don't write the user interfaces, they merely argue over
|
||
what they should look like.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists don't eat quiche. They shun Schezuan food since the
|
||
hackers discovered it. Many real computer scientists consider eating an
|
||
implementation detail. (Others break down and eat with the hackers, but only if
|
||
they can have ice cream for desert.)
|
||
|
||
If it doesn't have a programming environment complete with interactive debugger,
|
||
structure editor and extensive cross module type checking, real computer
|
||
scientists won't be seen tinkering with it. They may have to use it to balance
|
||
their checkbooks, as their own systems can't.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists don't program in assembler. They don't write in
|
||
anything less portable than a number two pencil.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists don't debug programs, they dynamically modify them.
|
||
This is safer, since no one has invented a way to do anything dynamic to
|
||
FORTRAN, COBOL or BASIC.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists like C's structured constructs, but they are suspicious
|
||
of it because its compiled. (Only Batch freaks and efficiency weirdos bother
|
||
with compilers, they're soooo un-dynamic.)
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists play go. They have nothing against the concept of
|
||
mountain climbing, but the actual climbing is an implementation detail best left
|
||
to programmers.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists admire ADA for its overwhelming aesthetic value, but
|
||
they find it difficult to actually program in, as it is much too large to
|
||
implement. Most Computer scientists don't notice this because they are still
|
||
arguing over what else to add to ADA.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists work from 5 pm to 9 am because that's the only time
|
||
they can get the 8 megabytes of main memory they need to edit specs. (Real work
|
||
starts around 2 am when enough MIPS are free for their dynamic systems.) Real
|
||
computer scientists find it hard to share 3081s when they are doing 'REAL' work.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists only write specs for languages that might run on future
|
||
hardware. Nobody trusts them to write specs for anything homo sapiens will ever
|
||
be able to fit on a single planet.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists like planning their own environments to use bit mapped
|
||
graphics. Bit mapped graphics is great because no one can afford it, so their
|
||
systems can be experimental.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists regret the existence of PL/I, PASCAL and LISP. ADA is
|
||
getting there, but it is still allows people to make mistakes.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists love the concept of users. Users are always real
|
||
impressed by the stuff computer scientists are talking about; it sure sounds
|
||
better than the stuff they are being forced to use now.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
|
||
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
|
||
poor at I/O.
|
||
|
||
Real computer scientists love conventions. No one is expected to lug a 3081
|
||
attached to a bit map screen to a convention, so no one will ever know how slow
|
||
their systems run.
|
||
|
||
Call The Works BBS - 1600+ Textfiles! - [914]/238-8195 - 300/1200 - Always Open
|
||
|