Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 28 May 2020 16:47:05 +0200
From:      Polytropon <>
To:        Valeri Galtsev <>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD Cert
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20200527203627.2c9faae5@archlinux> <> <> <20200528022232.662100a3@archlinux> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, 27 May 2020 20:22:04 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Ralf, I fully agree with your very instructive presentation. There is 
> one single word you have used that upsets me. Nothing to do with your 
> point, it is just the word itself: "coders". The moment they invented 
> that name to replace the word "programmer" I felt like they purposefully 
> threw away all high level brain work programmers do and downgraded what 
> they do to something like just "writing computer code".

That is exactly my impression. It looks like a separation of
tasks: "This person here is a software architect, and his
subordinates are software engineers. And here, down in the
cellar, we have the coders..." - you get the idea. Historically,
"programmer" meant _all_ stages of program development, from
the "brain work" to "typing code into a machine", and of course
all considerations in between. Today, we have words like "ninja"
and "rockstar" for things that were probably normal programmers'
abilities in the past.

Coding is just a _part_ of programming, just as accounting is
just a part of corporate book keeping.

> Back then when 
> they were teaching us (not training, which would be showing trivial 
> repetitive skills, but teaching, which is developing the ability to 
> create something new).

The essential difference is that teaching enables you to
evolve from a certain point, enabling you to create something
new by advancing from your foundations in knowledge and experience,
whereas training, more or less, encourages you to repeat what
others show you, to gain a certain excellence at "re-creation".
This _might_ be sufficient in certain areas of software development,
where copypasta is all you need, no understanding of the problem
and its potential solutions...

> Of course, terminology changed, and my memory may not afford me the same 
> way of putting it as my great teaches did... But now it probably is 
> clear why use of the word "coder" is less than adequately describing 
> what programmers actually do.

My primary takeaway from university: "'Trial and error' is _not_ a
programming concept!" As stupid or inappropriate as it might sound,
it carries a certain truth: Sure, you can change your code so you
don't get compiler errors, piece by piece, but as a real programmer,
this is probably _not_ what you're going to do in order to solve a
specific problem.

"The program now outputs the monthly totals."

"But those numbers are wrong!"

"Can't be. The computer calculated them, so they must be right."

> Unless it is just a bunch of "coders" who write code for some 
> programmer, or project manager... whatever. Just code, no use of brain, 
> task akin writing trivial speech for politician.

"The compiler creates a binary, so what's your problem, d00d?!" :-)

	int x, y, sum;	// x, y, and sum are integers (numbers)
	sum = x - y;	// sum up x and y

Yes, sure.

Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>