On 01/04/2012 07:36 PM, Chris M wrote:
This is definitely the case. It's pretty tough to
find a programmer
these days who has any idea of how a computer actually works, even at
the assembly language level. This is something that many (most?)
people think is "just fine", and some have even go so far as to fling
around statements like "why should I learn to be a mechanic just to
drive a car?" ...thinking that's an appropriate analogy when it's
not. Looking at the state of software today proves my point beyond
any shadow of a doubt.
-Dave
C: I hate to tell you but was always the case. Unless the programmer
was working in al/ml, he didn't nor needed to know much about the
innards and what was going on under the hood. Granted there was a
time when you _needed_ to be something of a mechanic to get behind
the wheel. But isn't that one of the natural goals of technology, to
make things easier to use, and be able to devote time to other
things? How many housewives (or their husbands!) know how to fix a
washing machine? Some people get to poking around, and that's a good
thing generally. When you advance to poking around inside your
computer (w/1s and 0s or a scope/logic probe) all the better. But
what does programming w/objects have to do w/interrupt vector
tables??? I thought that we want to one day communicate w/our
computers solely by voice.
We're not really in disagreement here. What I'm saying is that a
much larger percentage of today's programmers are of the type who think
it is somehow "beneath" them to understand what the computer (not the
compiler) is doing with their code. There have always been lazy,
disinterested programmers who don't care about becoming better
programmers. Now it's pretty much ALL of them.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA