<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_29_1816226</id>
	<title>Does the 'Hacker Ethic' Harm Today's Developers?</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246264620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister questions whether the 'hacker ethic' synonymous with computer programing in American society <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/does-hacker-ethic-help-or-harm-todays-developers-169">is enough for developers to succeed in today's economy</a>. To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' &mdash; the hallmark of today's programming generation in America &mdash; are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.' And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/22/0019233/Indian-CEO-Says-Most-US-Tech-Grads-Unemployable">American programmers are 'unemployable'</a> is overblown, there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory. 'American software development managers often <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/painful-lessons-it-outsourcing-gone-bad-032">complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded</a>,' McAllister writes, but perhaps Americans have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. In other words, are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Fatal Exception 's Neil McAllister questions whether the 'hacker ethic ' synonymous with computer programing in American society is enough for developers to succeed in today 's economy .
To be sure , self-taught 'cowboy coders '    the hallmark of today 's programming generation in America    are technically proficient , McAllister writes , 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term , and they 're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards .
' And though HTC 's Vineet Nayar 's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable ' is overblown , there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory .
'American software development managers often complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded, ' McAllister writes , but perhaps Americans have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction .
In other words , are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today 's real-life business environment ?
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister questions whether the 'hacker ethic' synonymous with computer programing in American society is enough for developers to succeed in today's economy.
To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' — the hallmark of today's programming generation in America — are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.
' And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable' is overblown, there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.
'American software development managers often complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded,' McAllister writes, but perhaps Americans have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.
In other words, are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520603</id>
	<title>Re:Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246273020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>&lt;quote&gt;You can take a creative person and teach them the correct ways to apply their ideas&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>You're right of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... too bad there's another end of that spectrum which contains a significant portion of creative programmers that you can try and teach all you want, but insist on finding new and creative ways of discovering why the wheel was round in the first place.<br><br>In that light I find it ironic that you mention the game industry. An industry where this behaviour is oh-so-omnipresent and could use a little more "by the book" and less "from the hip".<br><br>Best<br><br> - a jaded old game developer<br><br></tt></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can take a creative person and teach them the correct ways to apply their ideasYou 're right of course ... too bad there 's another end of that spectrum which contains a significant portion of creative programmers that you can try and teach all you want , but insist on finding new and creative ways of discovering why the wheel was round in the first place.In that light I find it ironic that you mention the game industry .
An industry where this behaviour is oh-so-omnipresent and could use a little more " by the book " and less " from the hip " .Best - a jaded old game developer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can take a creative person and teach them the correct ways to apply their ideasYou're right of course ... too bad there's another end of that spectrum which contains a significant portion of creative programmers that you can try and teach all you want, but insist on finding new and creative ways of discovering why the wheel was round in the first place.In that light I find it ironic that you mention the game industry.
An industry where this behaviour is oh-so-omnipresent and could use a little more "by the book" and less "from the hip".Best - a jaded old game developer
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520211</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1246271280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Neil McAllister is an idiot. Stop posting his "stories".</p></div></blockquote><p>
He is an idiot. Confusing "HTL Technologies" with "HTC" is a serious <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/does-hacker-ethic-help-or-harm-todays-developers-169" title="infoworld.com">mistake</a> [infoworld.com] (<a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/06/top\_indian\_ceo.html" title="informationweek.com">here</a> [informationweek.com] is the original article he misquoted). It's cowboyish and sloppy. Such a blatant mistake couldn't have survived the watchful eyes of a fact-checker/editor. That being said, it speaks volume about Infoworld, and the kind of process it has for reviewing articles submitted to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me make this as clear as I can make it : Neil McAllister is an idiot .
Stop posting his " stories " .
He is an idiot .
Confusing " HTL Technologies " with " HTC " is a serious mistake [ infoworld.com ] ( here [ informationweek.com ] is the original article he misquoted ) .
It 's cowboyish and sloppy .
Such a blatant mistake could n't have survived the watchful eyes of a fact-checker/editor .
That being said , it speaks volume about Infoworld , and the kind of process it has for reviewing articles submitted to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Neil McAllister is an idiot.
Stop posting his "stories".
He is an idiot.
Confusing "HTL Technologies" with "HTC" is a serious mistake [infoworld.com] (here [informationweek.com] is the original article he misquoted).
It's cowboyish and sloppy.
Such a blatant mistake couldn't have survived the watchful eyes of a fact-checker/editor.
That being said, it speaks volume about Infoworld, and the kind of process it has for reviewing articles submitted to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28535537</id>
	<title>Re:You are not a cowboy.</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1246360380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an interesting question.  Many people would categorize me as a cowboy -- I'm careless about procedure, have no formal training, and will happily dive into a ridiculously complicated and difficult task without adequate planning.</p><p>In terms of TFA, I think I'm a "cowboy".  I don't think this reflects well on TFA, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an interesting question .
Many people would categorize me as a cowboy -- I 'm careless about procedure , have no formal training , and will happily dive into a ridiculously complicated and difficult task without adequate planning.In terms of TFA , I think I 'm a " cowboy " .
I do n't think this reflects well on TFA , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an interesting question.
Many people would categorize me as a cowboy -- I'm careless about procedure, have no formal training, and will happily dive into a ridiculously complicated and difficult task without adequate planning.In terms of TFA, I think I'm a "cowboy".
I don't think this reflects well on TFA, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520627</id>
	<title>What we need is a professional institute</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1246273140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we have at present is (still) an immature industry. No-one knows how to write high-quality code, that will work unconditionally and predictably under all circumstances - simply because no-one has ever written any. Everything being produced today - from a kiddy with a visual basic IDE through to life-support and aviation systems contains known bugs and even more unknown bugs. What we have now is akin to mechanical engineering from 1000 years ago. Some enormous structures we create today (e.g. the internet) will remain for generations, but they'll be hopelessly complex, inefficient, need constant maintaining and may not even be that suitable. A bit like the roads system (well, in those countries that have been around for a thousand years, anyway). Other products of our time will be marvelled at, but more along the lines of "why did they do that" or "what were they thinking" or "here's an example of how NOT to do it".
<p>
To get a professional basis for future work, we need something like the IEE or IEEE. Which upholds standards of professional work and polices the quality of product from it;s members.
</p><p>
It would still make room for non-members (or "cowboys" as they would no doubt be termed) to be employed, though presumably they couldn't command the same rates of pay as the professionals, as they would not have the backing and guarantees from the organisation and the qualifications it demands. Until we get somehting like that, we're simply just playing at programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we have at present is ( still ) an immature industry .
No-one knows how to write high-quality code , that will work unconditionally and predictably under all circumstances - simply because no-one has ever written any .
Everything being produced today - from a kiddy with a visual basic IDE through to life-support and aviation systems contains known bugs and even more unknown bugs .
What we have now is akin to mechanical engineering from 1000 years ago .
Some enormous structures we create today ( e.g .
the internet ) will remain for generations , but they 'll be hopelessly complex , inefficient , need constant maintaining and may not even be that suitable .
A bit like the roads system ( well , in those countries that have been around for a thousand years , anyway ) .
Other products of our time will be marvelled at , but more along the lines of " why did they do that " or " what were they thinking " or " here 's an example of how NOT to do it " .
To get a professional basis for future work , we need something like the IEE or IEEE .
Which upholds standards of professional work and polices the quality of product from it ; s members .
It would still make room for non-members ( or " cowboys " as they would no doubt be termed ) to be employed , though presumably they could n't command the same rates of pay as the professionals , as they would not have the backing and guarantees from the organisation and the qualifications it demands .
Until we get somehting like that , we 're simply just playing at programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we have at present is (still) an immature industry.
No-one knows how to write high-quality code, that will work unconditionally and predictably under all circumstances - simply because no-one has ever written any.
Everything being produced today - from a kiddy with a visual basic IDE through to life-support and aviation systems contains known bugs and even more unknown bugs.
What we have now is akin to mechanical engineering from 1000 years ago.
Some enormous structures we create today (e.g.
the internet) will remain for generations, but they'll be hopelessly complex, inefficient, need constant maintaining and may not even be that suitable.
A bit like the roads system (well, in those countries that have been around for a thousand years, anyway).
Other products of our time will be marvelled at, but more along the lines of "why did they do that" or "what were they thinking" or "here's an example of how NOT to do it".
To get a professional basis for future work, we need something like the IEE or IEEE.
Which upholds standards of professional work and polices the quality of product from it;s members.
It would still make room for non-members (or "cowboys" as they would no doubt be termed) to be employed, though presumably they couldn't command the same rates of pay as the professionals, as they would not have the backing and guarantees from the organisation and the qualifications it demands.
Until we get somehting like that, we're simply just playing at programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521467</id>
	<title>Re:Says who?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1246277580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hi, I'm a self-taught cowboy programmer.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not any more, now you're an anecdote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm a self-taught cowboy programmer .
Not any more , now you 're an anecdote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm a self-taught cowboy programmer.
Not any more, now you're an anecdote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520469</id>
	<title>You can take this process and shove it</title>
	<author>TheGrapeApe</author>
	<datestamp>1246272420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.</p></div><p>
A lot of times, the "Cowboy Coding" is more effective because the "development processes and coding standards" were implemented and enforced by phonetaggers who have never written a productive line of code in their entire lives.  Those who are inclined to break them, naturally, are more productive and seem more effective - despite the grumblings of the phonetaggers that they are "unmanageable".<br> <br>
But, really - Does "management" have any right to blame them?  They spent the last decade proving to every developer the idea that if you allow yourself or your work to be commoditized, we will ship you or your job overseas where it can be done cheaper.  And "development processes and coding standards" are usually implemented with the intent of "commoditizing", to a certain degree, the work of coding....and you're going to blame the *developers* for rejecting that?  Middle management in the US basically *created* the environment that forced developers to either become "Cowboys" or to compete with people making $4/hr overseas.<br> <br>Speaking on behalf of coders everywhere - You can take your "development processes and coding standards" and shove it - I'll keep my job and let you grumble under your breath about how I am "unmanageable", thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and they 're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards .
A lot of times , the " Cowboy Coding " is more effective because the " development processes and coding standards " were implemented and enforced by phonetaggers who have never written a productive line of code in their entire lives .
Those who are inclined to break them , naturally , are more productive and seem more effective - despite the grumblings of the phonetaggers that they are " unmanageable " .
But , really - Does " management " have any right to blame them ?
They spent the last decade proving to every developer the idea that if you allow yourself or your work to be commoditized , we will ship you or your job overseas where it can be done cheaper .
And " development processes and coding standards " are usually implemented with the intent of " commoditizing " , to a certain degree , the work of coding....and you 're going to blame the * developers * for rejecting that ?
Middle management in the US basically * created * the environment that forced developers to either become " Cowboys " or to compete with people making $ 4/hr overseas .
Speaking on behalf of coders everywhere - You can take your " development processes and coding standards " and shove it - I 'll keep my job and let you grumble under your breath about how I am " unmanageable " , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.
A lot of times, the "Cowboy Coding" is more effective because the "development processes and coding standards" were implemented and enforced by phonetaggers who have never written a productive line of code in their entire lives.
Those who are inclined to break them, naturally, are more productive and seem more effective - despite the grumblings of the phonetaggers that they are "unmanageable".
But, really - Does "management" have any right to blame them?
They spent the last decade proving to every developer the idea that if you allow yourself or your work to be commoditized, we will ship you or your job overseas where it can be done cheaper.
And "development processes and coding standards" are usually implemented with the intent of "commoditizing", to a certain degree, the work of coding....and you're going to blame the *developers* for rejecting that?
Middle management in the US basically *created* the environment that forced developers to either become "Cowboys" or to compete with people making $4/hr overseas.
Speaking on behalf of coders everywhere - You can take your "development processes and coding standards" and shove it - I'll keep my job and let you grumble under your breath about how I am "unmanageable", thank you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520427</id>
	<title>Hackers, Cowboys and Cogs</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1246272180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacker: A natural computer genius, grew up with a keyboard in his hand.  Hackers may have a formal education but they learned the guts of computing long before that.  They have an almost intuitive, because it is deeply learned, knowledge of what works and what doesn't when it comes to computers.  I think being a hacker is something to be aspired to, but I doubt that anyone can apply the title to themselves.  Well, some people can, because they're <i>just that good.</i></p><p>Cowboy: An independant soul who may be too stubborn to admit he is wrong about certain ingrained behaviors he's picked up over time.  Sometimes people will put up with his ways because he is <i>just that good</i>, other times he'll make a catastrophic error and send everything to Hell.  Not good or evil, just stubborn and independent.  Sometimes his stubbornness can work in a company's favor, when the political thing to do is actually the wrong thing, and the cowboy won't "go along to get along."  Sadly, the company is unlikely to thank the cowboy for this.</p><p>Cog:  Mister Cellophane, a nobody who anyone can step on, a little grey man.  This guy figures "you take care of the company, the company will take care of you," but is surprised when being taken care of by the company involves a pair of cement shoes and a trip to the pier.  Cogs do their best to be easily replacable, and try to make themselves politically popular.  Maybe that path succeeds for them, but maybe they find themselves the sacrificial lamb.  In MIT slang you could possibly call this person a tool.</p><p>I parse the article this way "We'd like less independent geniuses and more interchangeable cogs, please."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacker : A natural computer genius , grew up with a keyboard in his hand .
Hackers may have a formal education but they learned the guts of computing long before that .
They have an almost intuitive , because it is deeply learned , knowledge of what works and what does n't when it comes to computers .
I think being a hacker is something to be aspired to , but I doubt that anyone can apply the title to themselves .
Well , some people can , because they 're just that good.Cowboy : An independant soul who may be too stubborn to admit he is wrong about certain ingrained behaviors he 's picked up over time .
Sometimes people will put up with his ways because he is just that good , other times he 'll make a catastrophic error and send everything to Hell .
Not good or evil , just stubborn and independent .
Sometimes his stubbornness can work in a company 's favor , when the political thing to do is actually the wrong thing , and the cowboy wo n't " go along to get along .
" Sadly , the company is unlikely to thank the cowboy for this.Cog : Mister Cellophane , a nobody who anyone can step on , a little grey man .
This guy figures " you take care of the company , the company will take care of you , " but is surprised when being taken care of by the company involves a pair of cement shoes and a trip to the pier .
Cogs do their best to be easily replacable , and try to make themselves politically popular .
Maybe that path succeeds for them , but maybe they find themselves the sacrificial lamb .
In MIT slang you could possibly call this person a tool.I parse the article this way " We 'd like less independent geniuses and more interchangeable cogs , please .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacker: A natural computer genius, grew up with a keyboard in his hand.
Hackers may have a formal education but they learned the guts of computing long before that.
They have an almost intuitive, because it is deeply learned, knowledge of what works and what doesn't when it comes to computers.
I think being a hacker is something to be aspired to, but I doubt that anyone can apply the title to themselves.
Well, some people can, because they're just that good.Cowboy: An independant soul who may be too stubborn to admit he is wrong about certain ingrained behaviors he's picked up over time.
Sometimes people will put up with his ways because he is just that good, other times he'll make a catastrophic error and send everything to Hell.
Not good or evil, just stubborn and independent.
Sometimes his stubbornness can work in a company's favor, when the political thing to do is actually the wrong thing, and the cowboy won't "go along to get along.
"  Sadly, the company is unlikely to thank the cowboy for this.Cog:  Mister Cellophane, a nobody who anyone can step on, a little grey man.
This guy figures "you take care of the company, the company will take care of you," but is surprised when being taken care of by the company involves a pair of cement shoes and a trip to the pier.
Cogs do their best to be easily replacable, and try to make themselves politically popular.
Maybe that path succeeds for them, but maybe they find themselves the sacrificial lamb.
In MIT slang you could possibly call this person a tool.I parse the article this way "We'd like less independent geniuses and more interchangeable cogs, please.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520535</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree that a bachelors in CS is not substitute for experience, and you really won't get that for some time after college. I'm still an undergraduate and fully aware that I do not have the experience and skills I need to be a well-rounded programmer.</p><p>However, the things you listed as "not covered" ARE covered in the courses I have taken. Perhaps this is a difference in qualities of CS programs, but it is certainly not true that </p><p><div class="quote"><p>source control, makefiles, modularization, making sense of a program that was written ten years ago, reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for, effective use of a debugger etc. etc. -</p> </div><p> are not covered, good CS programs do - and should - cover them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree that a bachelors in CS is not substitute for experience , and you really wo n't get that for some time after college .
I 'm still an undergraduate and fully aware that I do not have the experience and skills I need to be a well-rounded programmer.However , the things you listed as " not covered " ARE covered in the courses I have taken .
Perhaps this is a difference in qualities of CS programs , but it is certainly not true that source control , makefiles , modularization , making sense of a program that was written ten years ago , reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for , effective use of a debugger etc .
etc. - are not covered , good CS programs do - and should - cover them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree that a bachelors in CS is not substitute for experience, and you really won't get that for some time after college.
I'm still an undergraduate and fully aware that I do not have the experience and skills I need to be a well-rounded programmer.However, the things you listed as "not covered" ARE covered in the courses I have taken.
Perhaps this is a difference in qualities of CS programs, but it is certainly not true that source control, makefiles, modularization, making sense of a program that was written ten years ago, reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for, effective use of a debugger etc.
etc. -  are not covered, good CS programs do - and should - cover them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519967</id>
	<title>Ethics are not meant to promote business</title>
	<author>pisco\_sour</author>
	<datestamp>1246270440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Hacker Ethic is not a set of guiding principles designed or built to promote the adaptation of programmers to development processes and business planning. And it shouldn't have to be.</p><p>Very well, you may want to train people within a different mindset prepared to fit into a process, acknowledge the existing rulebook and basically play nicely by it, working with others in developing business-oriented code for business purposes. But the Hacker Ethic is much more a cultural development for what was at its time mostly a subculture, than it is a series of well-defined principles for development. The Hacker Ethic emphasizes a series of value and skills that are perhaps way beyond a business development context - in that they belong much more in the future than they belong in the well-defined production/industrial contexts that we have come to tbe acquainted with.</p><p>So to put forth such an argument, that the Hacker Ethic harms developers' possibilities of conforming to market standards, is just that. It means conforming, thinking inside the box, and so on. Such is not the Hacker Ethic, and is not meant to be, and doesn't have to be. Just because there may be other, different objectives than those embodied in the HE, does not mean it needs to be put aside, transformed, or somehow modified. It's just different contexts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hacker Ethic is not a set of guiding principles designed or built to promote the adaptation of programmers to development processes and business planning .
And it should n't have to be.Very well , you may want to train people within a different mindset prepared to fit into a process , acknowledge the existing rulebook and basically play nicely by it , working with others in developing business-oriented code for business purposes .
But the Hacker Ethic is much more a cultural development for what was at its time mostly a subculture , than it is a series of well-defined principles for development .
The Hacker Ethic emphasizes a series of value and skills that are perhaps way beyond a business development context - in that they belong much more in the future than they belong in the well-defined production/industrial contexts that we have come to tbe acquainted with.So to put forth such an argument , that the Hacker Ethic harms developers ' possibilities of conforming to market standards , is just that .
It means conforming , thinking inside the box , and so on .
Such is not the Hacker Ethic , and is not meant to be , and does n't have to be .
Just because there may be other , different objectives than those embodied in the HE , does not mean it needs to be put aside , transformed , or somehow modified .
It 's just different contexts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hacker Ethic is not a set of guiding principles designed or built to promote the adaptation of programmers to development processes and business planning.
And it shouldn't have to be.Very well, you may want to train people within a different mindset prepared to fit into a process, acknowledge the existing rulebook and basically play nicely by it, working with others in developing business-oriented code for business purposes.
But the Hacker Ethic is much more a cultural development for what was at its time mostly a subculture, than it is a series of well-defined principles for development.
The Hacker Ethic emphasizes a series of value and skills that are perhaps way beyond a business development context - in that they belong much more in the future than they belong in the well-defined production/industrial contexts that we have come to tbe acquainted with.So to put forth such an argument, that the Hacker Ethic harms developers' possibilities of conforming to market standards, is just that.
It means conforming, thinking inside the box, and so on.
Such is not the Hacker Ethic, and is not meant to be, and doesn't have to be.
Just because there may be other, different objectives than those embodied in the HE, does not mean it needs to be put aside, transformed, or somehow modified.
It's just different contexts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1246270260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arguing against IDEs is pretty tired and boring. And embarassing. In general the code from "IDE Junkies/Jockeys" is just fine. An IDE is a tool like a hammer and if someone is using it wrong, you're going to see some bent nails. Refusing to use a tool isn't much better. An IDE takes a huge amount of trivial work out of designing GUIs, fixing syntax, refactoring, integrating with version control and just helping you remember the names of objects or methods or whatever. Am I an idiot because I'd rather look through a list that automatically pops up in my GUI than flip through a 500 page book?

<br> <br>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE (to work on appropriate scale projects) is like hunting with a spear, but you're not nearly as cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguing against IDEs is pretty tired and boring .
And embarassing .
In general the code from " IDE Junkies/Jockeys " is just fine .
An IDE is a tool like a hammer and if someone is using it wrong , you 're going to see some bent nails .
Refusing to use a tool is n't much better .
An IDE takes a huge amount of trivial work out of designing GUIs , fixing syntax , refactoring , integrating with version control and just helping you remember the names of objects or methods or whatever .
Am I an idiot because I 'd rather look through a list that automatically pops up in my GUI than flip through a 500 page book ?
Using a text editor instead of a full IDE ( to work on appropriate scale projects ) is like hunting with a spear , but you 're not nearly as cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguing against IDEs is pretty tired and boring.
And embarassing.
In general the code from "IDE Junkies/Jockeys" is just fine.
An IDE is a tool like a hammer and if someone is using it wrong, you're going to see some bent nails.
Refusing to use a tool isn't much better.
An IDE takes a huge amount of trivial work out of designing GUIs, fixing syntax, refactoring, integrating with version control and just helping you remember the names of objects or methods or whatever.
Am I an idiot because I'd rather look through a list that automatically pops up in my GUI than flip through a 500 page book?
Using a text editor instead of a full IDE (to work on appropriate scale projects) is like hunting with a spear, but you're not nearly as cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519521</id>
	<title>Synonymous with computer programing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the 'hacker ethic' being synonymous with computer programing only exists in your mind rather than American society. I know generations that have made decent livings programming, and they have nothing to do with hacking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the 'hacker ethic ' being synonymous with computer programing only exists in your mind rather than American society .
I know generations that have made decent livings programming , and they have nothing to do with hacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the 'hacker ethic' being synonymous with computer programing only exists in your mind rather than American society.
I know generations that have made decent livings programming, and they have nothing to do with hacking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525975</id>
	<title>Re:tigers vs lions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246360860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only in Kenya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only in Kenya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only in Kenya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520839</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246274340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said.</p><p>My first class where we used C was 2nd year. We were recommended a good book, a site or two, and then informed that our first assignment would be a C program that was expected to work properly, and no time in class would be spent learning the language. If we wanted to survive as computer scientists, we had to learn to learn.</p><p>I enjoy a great job today. I also did great in that class because it challenged me. I won't speak for others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said.My first class where we used C was 2nd year .
We were recommended a good book , a site or two , and then informed that our first assignment would be a C program that was expected to work properly , and no time in class would be spent learning the language .
If we wanted to survive as computer scientists , we had to learn to learn.I enjoy a great job today .
I also did great in that class because it challenged me .
I wo n't speak for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.My first class where we used C was 2nd year.
We were recommended a good book, a site or two, and then informed that our first assignment would be a C program that was expected to work properly, and no time in class would be spent learning the language.
If we wanted to survive as computer scientists, we had to learn to learn.I enjoy a great job today.
I also did great in that class because it challenged me.
I won't speak for others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520631</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1246273200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IDEs aren't about a "need," they're about convenience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IDEs are n't about a " need , " they 're about convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IDEs aren't about a "need," they're about convenience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523639</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>jobin</author>
	<datestamp>1246290960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not familiar with any college curriculum that covers things like source control, makefiles, modularization, making sense of a program that was written ten years ago, reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for, effective use of a debugger etc. etc.</p></div><p>That's funny. I'm in college right now, and several of our courses touch on those things. Makefiles, modularization, and basic use of a debugger are introduced in a Programming in C and UNIX course. These concepts are developed in later courses, and the upper-level project-based courses stress that without good code organization and management, producing a good product is nearly impossible. (I'm thinking especially of one particular course involving writing an OS kernel in 6 weeks with a partner.)</p><p>That's not to say that a few school projects can substitute for real world experience, but it's certainly not as if all we do is theory and math.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar with any college curriculum that covers things like source control , makefiles , modularization , making sense of a program that was written ten years ago , reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for , effective use of a debugger etc .
etc.That 's funny .
I 'm in college right now , and several of our courses touch on those things .
Makefiles , modularization , and basic use of a debugger are introduced in a Programming in C and UNIX course .
These concepts are developed in later courses , and the upper-level project-based courses stress that without good code organization and management , producing a good product is nearly impossible .
( I 'm thinking especially of one particular course involving writing an OS kernel in 6 weeks with a partner .
) That 's not to say that a few school projects can substitute for real world experience , but it 's certainly not as if all we do is theory and math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar with any college curriculum that covers things like source control, makefiles, modularization, making sense of a program that was written ten years ago, reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for, effective use of a debugger etc.
etc.That's funny.
I'm in college right now, and several of our courses touch on those things.
Makefiles, modularization, and basic use of a debugger are introduced in a Programming in C and UNIX course.
These concepts are developed in later courses, and the upper-level project-based courses stress that without good code organization and management, producing a good product is nearly impossible.
(I'm thinking especially of one particular course involving writing an OS kernel in 6 weeks with a partner.
)That's not to say that a few school projects can substitute for real world experience, but it's certainly not as if all we do is theory and math.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520195</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246271220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sorta agree.... Sometimes the tools lead to bad decisions.... I do use an IDE (ECLIPSE) but mainly for code highlighting, and to handle the svn within the same framework.  I rarely find myself using features like snippets, but do use some of the debugging tools.  I am by my very nature a hacker... I self taught myself to program in the 80's because it interested me.  I have since continued to learn new languages and processes.</p><p>I follow at least to a degree development standards...</p><p>Anyways to my agreeing with your statement...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developers when they do not have much real life development experience seem to rely on drag and drop controls and helpers of the IDE too much... This is great when the product fits the design of those tools but all too often the product will fail because of issues with the way tools are mixed and matched...</p><p>I think this comes down to not a gui vs non gui but experience vs not experienced</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sorta agree.... Sometimes the tools lead to bad decisions.... I do use an IDE ( ECLIPSE ) but mainly for code highlighting , and to handle the svn within the same framework .
I rarely find myself using features like snippets , but do use some of the debugging tools .
I am by my very nature a hacker... I self taught myself to program in the 80 's because it interested me .
I have since continued to learn new languages and processes.I follow at least to a degree development standards...Anyways to my agreeing with your statement... .NET developers when they do not have much real life development experience seem to rely on drag and drop controls and helpers of the IDE too much... This is great when the product fits the design of those tools but all too often the product will fail because of issues with the way tools are mixed and matched...I think this comes down to not a gui vs non gui but experience vs not experienced</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sorta agree.... Sometimes the tools lead to bad decisions.... I do use an IDE (ECLIPSE) but mainly for code highlighting, and to handle the svn within the same framework.
I rarely find myself using features like snippets, but do use some of the debugging tools.
I am by my very nature a hacker... I self taught myself to program in the 80's because it interested me.
I have since continued to learn new languages and processes.I follow at least to a degree development standards...Anyways to my agreeing with your statement... .NET developers when they do not have much real life development experience seem to rely on drag and drop controls and helpers of the IDE too much... This is great when the product fits the design of those tools but all too often the product will fail because of issues with the way tools are mixed and matched...I think this comes down to not a gui vs non gui but experience vs not experienced</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524259</id>
	<title>Re:opposite of observed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246296900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a racist scumbag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a racist scumbag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a racist scumbag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519669</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1246269420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'American software development managers often complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded,</p></div><p>Really? I think we've all seen <a href="http://blog.thingsdesigner.com/uploads/id/tree\_swing\_development\_requirements.jpg" title="thingsdesigner.com">this thing</a> [thingsdesigner.com]. If you aren't beign literal minded, you're making assumptions. When you make assumptions, at least some of them are going to be wrong. I spend a lot of time fighting for better defined requirements, because it means I'll spend less time doing rework when what I give my customer isn't what they wanted. The example I always give them is this:

<br> <br>You tell me college football, if you have possession of the ball and your knee touches the ground, the ball is down, whether or not the player was tackled. I give you a college football game, and the first time you try to kick a field goal, the ball is downed 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage because the holder's knee is touching the ground.

<br> <br>If you want something, your requirements better document it. Developers with "better practices" understand this. Unfortunately the people who write requirements usually don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'American software development managers often complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded,Really ?
I think we 've all seen this thing [ thingsdesigner.com ] .
If you are n't beign literal minded , you 're making assumptions .
When you make assumptions , at least some of them are going to be wrong .
I spend a lot of time fighting for better defined requirements , because it means I 'll spend less time doing rework when what I give my customer is n't what they wanted .
The example I always give them is this : You tell me college football , if you have possession of the ball and your knee touches the ground , the ball is down , whether or not the player was tackled .
I give you a college football game , and the first time you try to kick a field goal , the ball is downed 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage because the holder 's knee is touching the ground .
If you want something , your requirements better document it .
Developers with " better practices " understand this .
Unfortunately the people who write requirements usually do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'American software development managers often complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded,Really?
I think we've all seen this thing [thingsdesigner.com].
If you aren't beign literal minded, you're making assumptions.
When you make assumptions, at least some of them are going to be wrong.
I spend a lot of time fighting for better defined requirements, because it means I'll spend less time doing rework when what I give my customer isn't what they wanted.
The example I always give them is this:

 You tell me college football, if you have possession of the ball and your knee touches the ground, the ball is down, whether or not the player was tackled.
I give you a college football game, and the first time you try to kick a field goal, the ball is downed 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage because the holder's knee is touching the ground.
If you want something, your requirements better document it.
Developers with "better practices" understand this.
Unfortunately the people who write requirements usually don't.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522847</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246285080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE (to work on appropriate scale projects) is like hunting with a spear, but you're not nearly as cool.</p><p>Using a good editor(eg VIM) and compiler, via a make-dependency tool is like a silenced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.22-LR, quieter, simpler and more deadly than your spear. I will get you every time.</p><p>And BTW "Arguing against IDEs is pretty tired and boring" is to miss the point entirely, MANY of us hate the "Tool Makers" who<br>devise APIs that NEED an IDE to work, see J2EE client - server side nonsense, no one would have done that with pushback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE ( to work on appropriate scale projects ) is like hunting with a spear , but you 're not nearly as cool.Using a good editor ( eg VIM ) and compiler , via a make-dependency tool is like a silenced .22-LR , quieter , simpler and more deadly than your spear .
I will get you every time.And BTW " Arguing against IDEs is pretty tired and boring " is to miss the point entirely , MANY of us hate the " Tool Makers " whodevise APIs that NEED an IDE to work , see J2EE client - server side nonsense , no one would have done that with pushback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE (to work on appropriate scale projects) is like hunting with a spear, but you're not nearly as cool.Using a good editor(eg VIM) and compiler, via a make-dependency tool is like a silenced .22-LR, quieter, simpler and more deadly than your spear.
I will get you every time.And BTW "Arguing against IDEs is pretty tired and boring" is to miss the point entirely, MANY of us hate the "Tool Makers" whodevise APIs that NEED an IDE to work, see J2EE client - server side nonsense, no one would have done that with pushback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521449</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246277580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>source control,<br>makefiles,<br>modularization,<br>effective use of a debugger</p><p>The above are commonly taught in 2 year diploma classes, including the one I took. They are usually taught along side C++ or something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>source control,makefiles,modularization,effective use of a debuggerThe above are commonly taught in 2 year diploma classes , including the one I took .
They are usually taught along side C + + or something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>source control,makefiles,modularization,effective use of a debuggerThe above are commonly taught in 2 year diploma classes, including the one I took.
They are usually taught along side C++ or something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520743</id>
	<title>Re:Unemployable?</title>
	<author>Jean-Luc Picard</author>
	<datestamp>1246273800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a bug, It's job security !</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a bug , It 's job security !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a bug, It's job security !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28530349</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1246383600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An IDE takes a huge amount of trivial work out of designing GUIs, fixing syntax, refactoring, integrating with version control and just helping you remember the names of objects or methods or whatever.</p></div><p>There's an odd one out in that list. IDE GUI designers are horrible for producing maintainable code which doesn't lock you in to using the IDE in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An IDE takes a huge amount of trivial work out of designing GUIs , fixing syntax , refactoring , integrating with version control and just helping you remember the names of objects or methods or whatever.There 's an odd one out in that list .
IDE GUI designers are horrible for producing maintainable code which does n't lock you in to using the IDE in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IDE takes a huge amount of trivial work out of designing GUIs, fixing syntax, refactoring, integrating with version control and just helping you remember the names of objects or methods or whatever.There's an odd one out in that list.
IDE GUI designers are horrible for producing maintainable code which doesn't lock you in to using the IDE in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524087</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1246295280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.</em> </p><p>Perl is glue. Glue is messy. It's supposed to be messy; it handily fits things together that wouldn't otherwise interoperate.</p><p>Not much of a designer if you don't even know what glue is for.</p></div><p>If you're talking about Perl's intended purpose, then I guess I agree (although given enough time/money, I think you can always engineer something more robust and maintainable than a perl script). However, Perl, as a language, <i>is</i> an affront to anybody with a sense of design, and for no good reason. What does Perl's crazy syntax have to do with it being a "glue language"? Simple, readable scripting languages do exist.</p><p>Btw - something that's composed of several different systems and held together by a huge globs of glue, doesn't sound like a great real-world design either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design .
Perl is glue .
Glue is messy .
It 's supposed to be messy ; it handily fits things together that would n't otherwise interoperate.Not much of a designer if you do n't even know what glue is for.If you 're talking about Perl 's intended purpose , then I guess I agree ( although given enough time/money , I think you can always engineer something more robust and maintainable than a perl script ) .
However , Perl , as a language , is an affront to anybody with a sense of design , and for no good reason .
What does Perl 's crazy syntax have to do with it being a " glue language " ?
Simple , readable scripting languages do exist.Btw - something that 's composed of several different systems and held together by a huge globs of glue , does n't sound like a great real-world design either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.
Perl is glue.
Glue is messy.
It's supposed to be messy; it handily fits things together that wouldn't otherwise interoperate.Not much of a designer if you don't even know what glue is for.If you're talking about Perl's intended purpose, then I guess I agree (although given enough time/money, I think you can always engineer something more robust and maintainable than a perl script).
However, Perl, as a language, is an affront to anybody with a sense of design, and for no good reason.
What does Perl's crazy syntax have to do with it being a "glue language"?
Simple, readable scripting languages do exist.Btw - something that's composed of several different systems and held together by a huge globs of glue, doesn't sound like a great real-world design either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520043</id>
	<title>The industry is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Formalizing everything about programming into tedious red tape is not how to efficiently or properly write code.  If the hacker ethic is incompatible with the industry, then it's the industry that is wrong.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Innovation, true innovation, comes from giving your programmers and engineers some creative freedom, and some elbow-room to experiment and try things out of curiosity and pure ambition.   The Amiga is a perfect example -- it was possible only because the Amiga team was afforded to be creative with their work and make risks that most modern managers today would be too afraid to take.  Indians?  They're nice people and I love working with them, but they're too much like obedient puppies and not so much like daring inventors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Formalizing everything about programming into tedious red tape is not how to efficiently or properly write code .
If the hacker ethic is incompatible with the industry , then it 's the industry that is wrong .
  Innovation , true innovation , comes from giving your programmers and engineers some creative freedom , and some elbow-room to experiment and try things out of curiosity and pure ambition .
The Amiga is a perfect example -- it was possible only because the Amiga team was afforded to be creative with their work and make risks that most modern managers today would be too afraid to take .
Indians ? They 're nice people and I love working with them , but they 're too much like obedient puppies and not so much like daring inventors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Formalizing everything about programming into tedious red tape is not how to efficiently or properly write code.
If the hacker ethic is incompatible with the industry, then it's the industry that is wrong.
  Innovation, true innovation, comes from giving your programmers and engineers some creative freedom, and some elbow-room to experiment and try things out of curiosity and pure ambition.
The Amiga is a perfect example -- it was possible only because the Amiga team was afforded to be creative with their work and make risks that most modern managers today would be too afraid to take.
Indians?  They're nice people and I love working with them, but they're too much like obedient puppies and not so much like daring inventors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523565</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246290360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like completion as much as the next guy, but the thing about IDEs that I have a serious problem with is the idea of designing an application to assist with software development and then expecting me to code in it. I write, manipulate, and read text all day. I need a serious goddamn text editor with useful features for making software development easier, not a software development package with a text widget in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like completion as much as the next guy , but the thing about IDEs that I have a serious problem with is the idea of designing an application to assist with software development and then expecting me to code in it .
I write , manipulate , and read text all day .
I need a serious goddamn text editor with useful features for making software development easier , not a software development package with a text widget in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like completion as much as the next guy, but the thing about IDEs that I have a serious problem with is the idea of designing an application to assist with software development and then expecting me to code in it.
I write, manipulate, and read text all day.
I need a serious goddamn text editor with useful features for making software development easier, not a software development package with a text widget in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520067</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246270800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The hacker ethic is about...breaking things because you can... It has nothing to do with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...maintainability.</i></p><p>Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hacker ethic is about...breaking things because you can... It has nothing to do with ...maintainability.Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hacker ethic is about...breaking things because you can... It has nothing to do with ...maintainability.Really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532207</id>
	<title>Re:what about you need both</title>
	<author>beegeegee</author>
	<datestamp>1246389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked at a medium sized CD-Rom Game/Educational developer in the 90's.  This company was fabuously successful as long as it promoted the concept of lone cowboy development and throw-away code bases (one product version, one codebase).  As soon as 'engineer types' such as myself came along and started winning the engineer vs. hacker cultural debate, the company headed downhill.
<br> <br>
Still, I didn't learn.  When I was  called to maintain a hacker inspired web site in the past , I grumbled and complained.  Worse, I have a full time job at a company where engineering standards are high.  There is a design and documentation process, a coding process, a code-auditing process, qa etc.  Every new feature is evaluated endlessly against all the features that have come before it.  The result?  A really solid, functional web application.  And yet, there have been no innovations to this site in seven years; lots of features but no innovations.
<br> <br>
It takes a special talent and ego to do 1.0.  Maybe these guys should be fired or transferred to another 1.0 after the ship but they are quite necessary.  I have at least learned enough not to diminish their accomplisments and try to look at maintaining their code as a learning experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at a medium sized CD-Rom Game/Educational developer in the 90 's .
This company was fabuously successful as long as it promoted the concept of lone cowboy development and throw-away code bases ( one product version , one codebase ) .
As soon as 'engineer types ' such as myself came along and started winning the engineer vs. hacker cultural debate , the company headed downhill .
Still , I did n't learn .
When I was called to maintain a hacker inspired web site in the past , I grumbled and complained .
Worse , I have a full time job at a company where engineering standards are high .
There is a design and documentation process , a coding process , a code-auditing process , qa etc .
Every new feature is evaluated endlessly against all the features that have come before it .
The result ?
A really solid , functional web application .
And yet , there have been no innovations to this site in seven years ; lots of features but no innovations .
It takes a special talent and ego to do 1.0 .
Maybe these guys should be fired or transferred to another 1.0 after the ship but they are quite necessary .
I have at least learned enough not to diminish their accomplisments and try to look at maintaining their code as a learning experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at a medium sized CD-Rom Game/Educational developer in the 90's.
This company was fabuously successful as long as it promoted the concept of lone cowboy development and throw-away code bases (one product version, one codebase).
As soon as 'engineer types' such as myself came along and started winning the engineer vs. hacker cultural debate, the company headed downhill.
Still, I didn't learn.
When I was  called to maintain a hacker inspired web site in the past , I grumbled and complained.
Worse, I have a full time job at a company where engineering standards are high.
There is a design and documentation process, a coding process, a code-auditing process, qa etc.
Every new feature is evaluated endlessly against all the features that have come before it.
The result?
A really solid, functional web application.
And yet, there have been no innovations to this site in seven years; lots of features but no innovations.
It takes a special talent and ego to do 1.0.
Maybe these guys should be fired or transferred to another 1.0 after the ship but they are quite necessary.
I have at least learned enough not to diminish their accomplisments and try to look at maintaining their code as a learning experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520397</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>descil</author>
	<datestamp>1246272060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Thank you!<br><br>The original article is so annoying. Nasty nationalized stereotypes trying to make people think you have to either be sloppy or conformist. My designs are beautiful, elegant creations. They rarely follow any kind of "organizational development process" (except that I do MAKE a plan, though it only loosely gets followed: that's the idea) or "coding standards" (except in security, readability, and maintenance). I'm definitely not a hacker, but I'm not some half-dead brainwashed programming drone, either. Thank God.<br><br>Your writeup provides nice simple dichotomy with direct correlations and some minor humor, no hacking or cowboy shooting needed. And you don't seem terribly at risk for being accused of conforming to organizational development processes and coding standards, either. Cheers to you, particularly for the typos!<br><br>(ftr, it's true that I'm unemployable by most of the nasty corporations, being self-educated and kicked out of school for my non-cowboy, non-indian points of view. I don't really mind, as I still get paid enough by my lovely corporation to live by. At least til the project's done...)<br><br>-another american designer</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you ! The original article is so annoying .
Nasty nationalized stereotypes trying to make people think you have to either be sloppy or conformist .
My designs are beautiful , elegant creations .
They rarely follow any kind of " organizational development process " ( except that I do MAKE a plan , though it only loosely gets followed : that 's the idea ) or " coding standards " ( except in security , readability , and maintenance ) .
I 'm definitely not a hacker , but I 'm not some half-dead brainwashed programming drone , either .
Thank God.Your writeup provides nice simple dichotomy with direct correlations and some minor humor , no hacking or cowboy shooting needed .
And you do n't seem terribly at risk for being accused of conforming to organizational development processes and coding standards , either .
Cheers to you , particularly for the typos !
( ftr , it 's true that I 'm unemployable by most of the nasty corporations , being self-educated and kicked out of school for my non-cowboy , non-indian points of view .
I do n't really mind , as I still get paid enough by my lovely corporation to live by .
At least til the project 's done... ) -another american designer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!The original article is so annoying.
Nasty nationalized stereotypes trying to make people think you have to either be sloppy or conformist.
My designs are beautiful, elegant creations.
They rarely follow any kind of "organizational development process" (except that I do MAKE a plan, though it only loosely gets followed: that's the idea) or "coding standards" (except in security, readability, and maintenance).
I'm definitely not a hacker, but I'm not some half-dead brainwashed programming drone, either.
Thank God.Your writeup provides nice simple dichotomy with direct correlations and some minor humor, no hacking or cowboy shooting needed.
And you don't seem terribly at risk for being accused of conforming to organizational development processes and coding standards, either.
Cheers to you, particularly for the typos!
(ftr, it's true that I'm unemployable by most of the nasty corporations, being self-educated and kicked out of school for my non-cowboy, non-indian points of view.
I don't really mind, as I still get paid enough by my lovely corporation to live by.
At least til the project's done...)-another american designer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28536733</id>
	<title>Real Life Business Environment's full of fakes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"for some reason the business hires the drones and leaves the people with the communication skills in the dark."</b> - by tnk1 (899206) on Monday June 29, @04:56PM (#28519629)</p></div><p>You know what amazes me? The fact that people like you state that coders/software engineers/programmers cannot "communicate with others" (which is hilarious, they usually seem to get the actual WORK done, that others 'write about' (where you can BANK on the fact that most of these "technical writers" cannot actually code themselves &amp; therein lies the difference))...</p><p><b>Example of someone stating to myself, I cannot write correctly, here on this website (which typically is the "last resort" of the defeated in technical debates &amp; purely subjective, especially from those minus a PHD in English)? OK:</b></p><p><b>I had a guy here the other day named "Americano" try to 'tell me how to write' &amp; that my writing was poor, here -&gt; </b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1283193&amp;cid=28494351" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1283193&amp;cid=28494351</a> [slashdot.org] <b>and, the funniest part was he used "To Whit", &amp; the PROPER ENGLISH PHRASE IS "To Wit"</b>... so, so much for THAT, eh?</p><p>(I will ask YOU the same question then, do YOU HAVE A PHD in English? If not, then who are YOU to judge what "good writing is"??)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; <b>The REAL "bottom-line" I see, is that too many "I haven't done the job myself hands-on" mgt. types are in place in this art &amp; science, instead of guys that have "risen thru the ranks", hands-on, doing the job programming themselves, for years-to-decades, first - before becoming mgt.!</b> I've had 2 bosses of around 12 the past 16++ yrs. in this field that could actually code... the rest? FORGET IT...</p><p>(AND, yes, there is a BIG something "wrong" with that, in &amp; of itself!)</p><p>I mean, hey - after all:</p><p><b>How can you be a TRULY EFFECTIVE leader, if you haven't done the job you ask of your troops, so to speak, yourself?</b></p><p>(Imo @ least? Well - A good leader doesn't ask his boys do ANYTHING he cannot or has not, done himself... As it promotes respect, &amp; also creates another USEFUL pair of hands/eyes in coding environs (in times of deadlines, mgt. who CAN DO THE JOB can help as well in doing the actual coding task or parts of it if need be, in other words))</p><p>A manager that can &amp; has "done the job @ hand" also promotes GOOD DECISION MAKING SKILLS ON HIS PART, because a mgt. person who has done the job, himself, cannot be easily "mis-advised" &amp; has some actual experience in the task @ hand as well, &amp; can provide not only useful experienced input (but also can provide working code, IF NEED BE!)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" for some reason the business hires the drones and leaves the people with the communication skills in the dark .
" - by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Monday June 29 , @ 04 : 56PM ( # 28519629 ) You know what amazes me ?
The fact that people like you state that coders/software engineers/programmers can not " communicate with others " ( which is hilarious , they usually seem to get the actual WORK done , that others 'write about ' ( where you can BANK on the fact that most of these " technical writers " can not actually code themselves &amp; therein lies the difference ) ) ...Example of someone stating to myself , I can not write correctly , here on this website ( which typically is the " last resort " of the defeated in technical debates &amp; purely subjective , especially from those minus a PHD in English ) ?
OK : I had a guy here the other day named " Americano " try to 'tell me how to write ' &amp; that my writing was poor , here - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1283193&amp;cid = 28494351 [ slashdot.org ] and , the funniest part was he used " To Whit " , &amp; the PROPER ENGLISH PHRASE IS " To Wit " ... so , so much for THAT , eh ?
( I will ask YOU the same question then , do YOU HAVE A PHD in English ?
If not , then who are YOU to judge what " good writing is " ? ?
) APKP.S. = &gt; The REAL " bottom-line " I see , is that too many " I have n't done the job myself hands-on " mgt .
types are in place in this art &amp; science , instead of guys that have " risen thru the ranks " , hands-on , doing the job programming themselves , for years-to-decades , first - before becoming mgt. !
I 've had 2 bosses of around 12 the past 16 + + yrs .
in this field that could actually code... the rest ?
FORGET IT... ( AND , yes , there is a BIG something " wrong " with that , in &amp; of itself !
) I mean , hey - after all : How can you be a TRULY EFFECTIVE leader , if you have n't done the job you ask of your troops , so to speak , yourself ?
( Imo @ least ?
Well - A good leader does n't ask his boys do ANYTHING he can not or has not , done himself... As it promotes respect , &amp; also creates another USEFUL pair of hands/eyes in coding environs ( in times of deadlines , mgt .
who CAN DO THE JOB can help as well in doing the actual coding task or parts of it if need be , in other words ) ) A manager that can &amp; has " done the job @ hand " also promotes GOOD DECISION MAKING SKILLS ON HIS PART , because a mgt .
person who has done the job , himself , can not be easily " mis-advised " &amp; has some actual experience in the task @ hand as well , &amp; can provide not only useful experienced input ( but also can provide working code , IF NEED BE ! ) .. .
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"for some reason the business hires the drones and leaves the people with the communication skills in the dark.
" - by tnk1 (899206) on Monday June 29, @04:56PM (#28519629)You know what amazes me?
The fact that people like you state that coders/software engineers/programmers cannot "communicate with others" (which is hilarious, they usually seem to get the actual WORK done, that others 'write about' (where you can BANK on the fact that most of these "technical writers" cannot actually code themselves &amp; therein lies the difference))...Example of someone stating to myself, I cannot write correctly, here on this website (which typically is the "last resort" of the defeated in technical debates &amp; purely subjective, especially from those minus a PHD in English)?
OK:I had a guy here the other day named "Americano" try to 'tell me how to write' &amp; that my writing was poor, here -&gt;  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1283193&amp;cid=28494351 [slashdot.org] and, the funniest part was he used "To Whit", &amp; the PROPER ENGLISH PHRASE IS "To Wit"... so, so much for THAT, eh?
(I will ask YOU the same question then, do YOU HAVE A PHD in English?
If not, then who are YOU to judge what "good writing is"??
)APKP.S.=&gt; The REAL "bottom-line" I see, is that too many "I haven't done the job myself hands-on" mgt.
types are in place in this art &amp; science, instead of guys that have "risen thru the ranks", hands-on, doing the job programming themselves, for years-to-decades, first - before becoming mgt.!
I've had 2 bosses of around 12 the past 16++ yrs.
in this field that could actually code... the rest?
FORGET IT...(AND, yes, there is a BIG something "wrong" with that, in &amp; of itself!
)I mean, hey - after all:How can you be a TRULY EFFECTIVE leader, if you haven't done the job you ask of your troops, so to speak, yourself?
(Imo @ least?
Well - A good leader doesn't ask his boys do ANYTHING he cannot or has not, done himself... As it promotes respect, &amp; also creates another USEFUL pair of hands/eyes in coding environs (in times of deadlines, mgt.
who CAN DO THE JOB can help as well in doing the actual coding task or parts of it if need be, in other words))A manager that can &amp; has "done the job @ hand" also promotes GOOD DECISION MAKING SKILLS ON HIS PART, because a mgt.
person who has done the job, himself, cannot be easily "mis-advised" &amp; has some actual experience in the task @ hand as well, &amp; can provide not only useful experienced input (but also can provide working code, IF NEED BE!)...
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523485</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246289640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(although four years of college under a computer science major does equate to probably one or two years of real-world experience)</p></div><p>It absolutely <b>doesn't.</b> Four semesters of calculus, and three semesters of other maths completely wasted prove this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( although four years of college under a computer science major does equate to probably one or two years of real-world experience ) It absolutely does n't .
Four semesters of calculus , and three semesters of other maths completely wasted prove this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(although four years of college under a computer science major does equate to probably one or two years of real-world experience)It absolutely doesn't.
Four semesters of calculus, and three semesters of other maths completely wasted prove this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532775</id>
	<title>Re:Not just developers -- CCIE from a school?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246391040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>....Anybody can go to college or trade school and get an MCSE, or a CCIE, or any number of system/network specific certifications..... </p></div><p>While there are programs that are able to give training for people wanting to get a CCIE (at a very high cost of something like $20,000), the experience I have working in the networking field is that the CCIE track is virtually unattainable without significant field experience.</p><p>On the other hand, all the CCIEs I know have been working in the industry for anywhere from 4-10 years, so they've all got the experience I'm talking about.<br>Your statement could explain the phenomenon I've yet to encounter of the CCIE that can't configure his way out of a wet paper bag with a map and a machete.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>....Anybody can go to college or trade school and get an MCSE , or a CCIE , or any number of system/network specific certifications..... While there are programs that are able to give training for people wanting to get a CCIE ( at a very high cost of something like $ 20,000 ) , the experience I have working in the networking field is that the CCIE track is virtually unattainable without significant field experience.On the other hand , all the CCIEs I know have been working in the industry for anywhere from 4-10 years , so they 've all got the experience I 'm talking about.Your statement could explain the phenomenon I 've yet to encounter of the CCIE that ca n't configure his way out of a wet paper bag with a map and a machete.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ....Anybody can go to college or trade school and get an MCSE, or a CCIE, or any number of system/network specific certifications..... While there are programs that are able to give training for people wanting to get a CCIE (at a very high cost of something like $20,000), the experience I have working in the networking field is that the CCIE track is virtually unattainable without significant field experience.On the other hand, all the CCIEs I know have been working in the industry for anywhere from 4-10 years, so they've all got the experience I'm talking about.Your statement could explain the phenomenon I've yet to encounter of the CCIE that can't configure his way out of a wet paper bag with a map and a machete.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28538171</id>
	<title>Re:Horse Pucky</title>
	<author>corrie</author>
	<datestamp>1246378560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen, brother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520257</id>
	<title>2c worth</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1246271460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking from a perspective of 23 years experience in IT I can honestly say that the single biggest impediment to the successful delivery of any IT project is the failure of management to understand the nature of what it is we do.<br>I am currently working as an Integration Architect in a rather large IT programme within which numerous separate-but-connected projects are being run. I find myself having to explain again and again to the PHB's what re-use means. Why we're concerned with maintainability. Why having a sensible data dictionary is good. Part of the problem is the way the individual projects are being run means that there is no value placed on architectural considerations which have a financial impact (cost saving) over the long term. PM's are focused on their own deliverables/budgets/deadlines and in our specific instance, the team responsible for "integration" does not have any clout - we work by cajoling, wheedling, nagging and stealth. If I had a buck for every time I had to present a "SDLC for dummies" powerpoint to a bunch of PM's and middle-management...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking from a perspective of 23 years experience in IT I can honestly say that the single biggest impediment to the successful delivery of any IT project is the failure of management to understand the nature of what it is we do.I am currently working as an Integration Architect in a rather large IT programme within which numerous separate-but-connected projects are being run .
I find myself having to explain again and again to the PHB 's what re-use means .
Why we 're concerned with maintainability .
Why having a sensible data dictionary is good .
Part of the problem is the way the individual projects are being run means that there is no value placed on architectural considerations which have a financial impact ( cost saving ) over the long term .
PM 's are focused on their own deliverables/budgets/deadlines and in our specific instance , the team responsible for " integration " does not have any clout - we work by cajoling , wheedling , nagging and stealth .
If I had a buck for every time I had to present a " SDLC for dummies " powerpoint to a bunch of PM 's and middle-management.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking from a perspective of 23 years experience in IT I can honestly say that the single biggest impediment to the successful delivery of any IT project is the failure of management to understand the nature of what it is we do.I am currently working as an Integration Architect in a rather large IT programme within which numerous separate-but-connected projects are being run.
I find myself having to explain again and again to the PHB's what re-use means.
Why we're concerned with maintainability.
Why having a sensible data dictionary is good.
Part of the problem is the way the individual projects are being run means that there is no value placed on architectural considerations which have a financial impact (cost saving) over the long term.
PM's are focused on their own deliverables/budgets/deadlines and in our specific instance, the team responsible for "integration" does not have any clout - we work by cajoling, wheedling, nagging and stealth.
If I had a buck for every time I had to present a "SDLC for dummies" powerpoint to a bunch of PM's and middle-management...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520799</id>
	<title>Re:Says who?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1246274040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one thing that's important to remember is that most non-trivial systems are produced by organizations, not individuals.  Doesn't it make sense that the quality of the institution is a factor in code quality?   Take a talented individual, put him in a good organization and he will learn to work in a way that the organization rewards.</p><p>Computer science is like anything other kind of academic discipline. It is very valuable, but it's not magic.</p><p>Consider this thought experiment. Alice likes to read poetry, and tries her hand at writing. She regularly shares her poems with other people interested in reading and writing poetry.  Bob likes poetry, so he gets a degree in English and takes as many poetry classes as he can.  Then he starts writing poetry and tries submitting it to the New Yorker. It seems to me Alice is more likely to become an accomplished poet than Bob, although you can never know for sure.  On the other hand, consider Charlie who like Alice workshops his poems all the time, but who also gets the same formal education as Bob.  Again there's no guarantees, but unless something is seriously wrong with the school he's going to he should have the best shot of all.</p><p>What I'm saying is that the Computer Science and the craft aspects of programming are complementary <em>precisely because they aren't the same thing</em>.</p><p>Without a computer science background, Larry Page and Sergei Brin would never have been able to make Google a success.  Google is very much a company founded on algorithms and grown through architecture.  Without programming craft, the products would not have been able to be maintained and scaled.to success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one thing that 's important to remember is that most non-trivial systems are produced by organizations , not individuals .
Does n't it make sense that the quality of the institution is a factor in code quality ?
Take a talented individual , put him in a good organization and he will learn to work in a way that the organization rewards.Computer science is like anything other kind of academic discipline .
It is very valuable , but it 's not magic.Consider this thought experiment .
Alice likes to read poetry , and tries her hand at writing .
She regularly shares her poems with other people interested in reading and writing poetry .
Bob likes poetry , so he gets a degree in English and takes as many poetry classes as he can .
Then he starts writing poetry and tries submitting it to the New Yorker .
It seems to me Alice is more likely to become an accomplished poet than Bob , although you can never know for sure .
On the other hand , consider Charlie who like Alice workshops his poems all the time , but who also gets the same formal education as Bob .
Again there 's no guarantees , but unless something is seriously wrong with the school he 's going to he should have the best shot of all.What I 'm saying is that the Computer Science and the craft aspects of programming are complementary precisely because they are n't the same thing.Without a computer science background , Larry Page and Sergei Brin would never have been able to make Google a success .
Google is very much a company founded on algorithms and grown through architecture .
Without programming craft , the products would not have been able to be maintained and scaled.to success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one thing that's important to remember is that most non-trivial systems are produced by organizations, not individuals.
Doesn't it make sense that the quality of the institution is a factor in code quality?
Take a talented individual, put him in a good organization and he will learn to work in a way that the organization rewards.Computer science is like anything other kind of academic discipline.
It is very valuable, but it's not magic.Consider this thought experiment.
Alice likes to read poetry, and tries her hand at writing.
She regularly shares her poems with other people interested in reading and writing poetry.
Bob likes poetry, so he gets a degree in English and takes as many poetry classes as he can.
Then he starts writing poetry and tries submitting it to the New Yorker.
It seems to me Alice is more likely to become an accomplished poet than Bob, although you can never know for sure.
On the other hand, consider Charlie who like Alice workshops his poems all the time, but who also gets the same formal education as Bob.
Again there's no guarantees, but unless something is seriously wrong with the school he's going to he should have the best shot of all.What I'm saying is that the Computer Science and the craft aspects of programming are complementary precisely because they aren't the same thing.Without a computer science background, Larry Page and Sergei Brin would never have been able to make Google a success.
Google is very much a company founded on algorithms and grown through architecture.
Without programming craft, the products would not have been able to be maintained and scaled.to success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521993</id>
	<title>Re:Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246280160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers</p></div><p>Funny thing is, most creative Indian developers end up being Indian-American developers eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And before I get flamed , I 'm saying this in general , I 'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there , just as there are many uncreative American developersFunny thing is , most creative Indian developers end up being Indian-American developers eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developersFunny thing is, most creative Indian developers end up being Indian-American developers eventually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525277</id>
	<title>More H-1B Propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just the latest line of attack on American engineers and programmers. The US created this whole software industry but we are supposed to believe that India which has produced...well nothing...is the great future of programming insight. Give me a break. Let's review that again, how many great industries have come from India? NONE. They export humans to other countries that have enough freedom to actually create things. That's it. The reason US companies don't go full speed on off-shoring to India is Indian culture. Indian culture really sucks. It kills all new ideas. If Bill Gates had grown up in India he would be in the wrong cast and therefore be cursed to be a goat hurder. That's how India works. Almost every single Indian in the US is from the same cast. Not because they are smarter but because of discrimination. The Indians in the US on H-1Bs have a slave-owner mentality. They think they deserve to be rich and not work hard. So they all want to get into management and recruit their buddies. If you are a US business and you let Indians in to run it you are a moron. They will drive the business into the ground. Look at what the ruling casts have done to India.</p><p>The reason Indians can come to the US and succeed is because its the US and not India. India has some great people but they suffer under its crappy culture. If you let enough Indians into your business they will supplant your culture with crappy Indian lazy ass culture.</p><p>So stop lecture us about how great India is. Until India can feed its starving masses "shut up."  Until India can figure out how to control the growth of its population, "shut up." They are so screwed up over there that they don't have clean drinking water but they are afraid of condoms.</p><p>Stop bad mouthing the USA, Stop talking shit about the USA. If the US wasn't generous enough to allow our labor markets to be regulated by the feds to import labor, you would all be sitting in India drinking your shit water and dreaming of living in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just the latest line of attack on American engineers and programmers .
The US created this whole software industry but we are supposed to believe that India which has produced...well nothing...is the great future of programming insight .
Give me a break .
Let 's review that again , how many great industries have come from India ?
NONE. They export humans to other countries that have enough freedom to actually create things .
That 's it .
The reason US companies do n't go full speed on off-shoring to India is Indian culture .
Indian culture really sucks .
It kills all new ideas .
If Bill Gates had grown up in India he would be in the wrong cast and therefore be cursed to be a goat hurder .
That 's how India works .
Almost every single Indian in the US is from the same cast .
Not because they are smarter but because of discrimination .
The Indians in the US on H-1Bs have a slave-owner mentality .
They think they deserve to be rich and not work hard .
So they all want to get into management and recruit their buddies .
If you are a US business and you let Indians in to run it you are a moron .
They will drive the business into the ground .
Look at what the ruling casts have done to India.The reason Indians can come to the US and succeed is because its the US and not India .
India has some great people but they suffer under its crappy culture .
If you let enough Indians into your business they will supplant your culture with crappy Indian lazy ass culture.So stop lecture us about how great India is .
Until India can feed its starving masses " shut up .
" Until India can figure out how to control the growth of its population , " shut up .
" They are so screwed up over there that they do n't have clean drinking water but they are afraid of condoms.Stop bad mouthing the USA , Stop talking shit about the USA .
If the US was n't generous enough to allow our labor markets to be regulated by the feds to import labor , you would all be sitting in India drinking your shit water and dreaming of living in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just the latest line of attack on American engineers and programmers.
The US created this whole software industry but we are supposed to believe that India which has produced...well nothing...is the great future of programming insight.
Give me a break.
Let's review that again, how many great industries have come from India?
NONE. They export humans to other countries that have enough freedom to actually create things.
That's it.
The reason US companies don't go full speed on off-shoring to India is Indian culture.
Indian culture really sucks.
It kills all new ideas.
If Bill Gates had grown up in India he would be in the wrong cast and therefore be cursed to be a goat hurder.
That's how India works.
Almost every single Indian in the US is from the same cast.
Not because they are smarter but because of discrimination.
The Indians in the US on H-1Bs have a slave-owner mentality.
They think they deserve to be rich and not work hard.
So they all want to get into management and recruit their buddies.
If you are a US business and you let Indians in to run it you are a moron.
They will drive the business into the ground.
Look at what the ruling casts have done to India.The reason Indians can come to the US and succeed is because its the US and not India.
India has some great people but they suffer under its crappy culture.
If you let enough Indians into your business they will supplant your culture with crappy Indian lazy ass culture.So stop lecture us about how great India is.
Until India can feed its starving masses "shut up.
"  Until India can figure out how to control the growth of its population, "shut up.
" They are so screwed up over there that they don't have clean drinking water but they are afraid of condoms.Stop bad mouthing the USA, Stop talking shit about the USA.
If the US wasn't generous enough to allow our labor markets to be regulated by the feds to import labor, you would all be sitting in India drinking your shit water and dreaming of living in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532773</id>
	<title>The kettle calling the pot black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246391040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm now working in a US-based company that employs several Indian programmers. I've never worked clossely with non-US coders, and it's been eye-opening. Believe me, the US has nothing to fear from outsourced code - these guys produce shite.<br>And, interestingly, I don't think it's a "genetic" thing, I think it's environmental. Their code is awkward and convoluted in EXACTLY the same way that their English is awkward and convoluted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm now working in a US-based company that employs several Indian programmers .
I 've never worked clossely with non-US coders , and it 's been eye-opening .
Believe me , the US has nothing to fear from outsourced code - these guys produce shite.And , interestingly , I do n't think it 's a " genetic " thing , I think it 's environmental .
Their code is awkward and convoluted in EXACTLY the same way that their English is awkward and convoluted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm now working in a US-based company that employs several Indian programmers.
I've never worked clossely with non-US coders, and it's been eye-opening.
Believe me, the US has nothing to fear from outsourced code - these guys produce shite.And, interestingly, I don't think it's a "genetic" thing, I think it's environmental.
Their code is awkward and convoluted in EXACTLY the same way that their English is awkward and convoluted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.</em></p><p>Perl is glue. Glue is messy. It's supposed to be messy; it handily fits things together that wouldn't otherwise interoperate.</p><p>Not much of a designer if you don't even know what glue is for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.Perl is glue .
Glue is messy .
It 's supposed to be messy ; it handily fits things together that would n't otherwise interoperate.Not much of a designer if you do n't even know what glue is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.Perl is glue.
Glue is messy.
It's supposed to be messy; it handily fits things together that wouldn't otherwise interoperate.Not much of a designer if you don't even know what glue is for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528763</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246378440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Perl is glue. Glue is messy. It's supposed to be messy;</i></p><p>Well said, my friend! I love me some Perl hacks, and often use it to whip up a quick cut at an analysis when we're not sure of the value of the data that will come out. If it looks like the ROI is there to justify it, I build a more robust implementation in a stricter language.</p><p>It's a toolbox. More tools is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl is glue .
Glue is messy .
It 's supposed to be messy ; Well said , my friend !
I love me some Perl hacks , and often use it to whip up a quick cut at an analysis when we 're not sure of the value of the data that will come out .
If it looks like the ROI is there to justify it , I build a more robust implementation in a stricter language.It 's a toolbox .
More tools is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl is glue.
Glue is messy.
It's supposed to be messy;Well said, my friend!
I love me some Perl hacks, and often use it to whip up a quick cut at an analysis when we're not sure of the value of the data that will come out.
If it looks like the ROI is there to justify it, I build a more robust implementation in a stricter language.It's a toolbox.
More tools is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522479</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, most of that is good sense, what isnt is the lack of understanding that you CAN NOT teach people to program so all the patterns, methodologies, tool kits,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... are all cover for the academic cry "why the hell can we not teach them to program, in 1970. to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why cant we program ourselves today".</p><p>The answer is that programming well is very hard and can be done well by very few, which means that they are rare and expensive.</p><p>Many idiots have tried to ignore this, and in some of the Major Banks, managers managed to move on before they were found out.</p><p>Now, Risk and Derivative Pricing can not be let to these idiots!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , most of that is good sense , what isnt is the lack of understanding that you CAN NOT teach people to program so all the patterns , methodologies , tool kits , .... are all cover for the academic cry " why the hell can we not teach them to program , in 1970. to ... why cant we program ourselves today " .The answer is that programming well is very hard and can be done well by very few , which means that they are rare and expensive.Many idiots have tried to ignore this , and in some of the Major Banks , managers managed to move on before they were found out.Now , Risk and Derivative Pricing can not be let to these idiots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, most of that is good sense, what isnt is the lack of understanding that you CAN NOT teach people to program so all the patterns, methodologies, tool kits, .... are all cover for the academic cry "why the hell can we not teach them to program, in 1970. to ... why cant we program ourselves today".The answer is that programming well is very hard and can be done well by very few, which means that they are rare and expensive.Many idiots have tried to ignore this, and in some of the Major Banks, managers managed to move on before they were found out.Now, Risk and Derivative Pricing can not be let to these idiots!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521007</id>
	<title>Standards for Coding</title>
	<author>TW Burger</author>
	<datestamp>1246275180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Albeit true that there is a cadre of self proclaimed hackers in America that forsake all and any form of maintainability in the code they write this is generally not true of professionals that are trained at places like MIT, Waterloo, CalTech, or BCIT. My experience as a gun for hire project saving consultant is that generally the absolute crappiest of source code comes from overseas out-sourcing (although, in all fairness, the worst examples I've come across are made in America). It's not because the programmers in India, Vietnam, Romania are bad - some, if not many are outstanding. It's because the managers are forcing poor work habits to increase productivity (and profit) - they are not paid for comments and proper variable names, only for the lines of code.<br> <br>Professional computer programming is only about 50 years old. As a profession it is virtually brand new and standards, except for core, common sense axioms, are mostly short lived fads ("Scrum" is about the most inane yet). Even the basic tool, programming language, changes every few years. LISP, Clarion, Delphi, PL/1, FORTRAN, C, C++, Java, and now C# were and are touted as the standard to work from. I was first taught assembler and then COBOL (shows my length of time in the trenches).<br> <br>A new kind of computer engineering degree is not needed an established set of standards is required. When a body of standardization is in place and true universal standards are established, then the quality of coding will become uniform. I do doubt that this will happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Albeit true that there is a cadre of self proclaimed hackers in America that forsake all and any form of maintainability in the code they write this is generally not true of professionals that are trained at places like MIT , Waterloo , CalTech , or BCIT .
My experience as a gun for hire project saving consultant is that generally the absolute crappiest of source code comes from overseas out-sourcing ( although , in all fairness , the worst examples I 've come across are made in America ) .
It 's not because the programmers in India , Vietnam , Romania are bad - some , if not many are outstanding .
It 's because the managers are forcing poor work habits to increase productivity ( and profit ) - they are not paid for comments and proper variable names , only for the lines of code .
Professional computer programming is only about 50 years old .
As a profession it is virtually brand new and standards , except for core , common sense axioms , are mostly short lived fads ( " Scrum " is about the most inane yet ) .
Even the basic tool , programming language , changes every few years .
LISP , Clarion , Delphi , PL/1 , FORTRAN , C , C + + , Java , and now C # were and are touted as the standard to work from .
I was first taught assembler and then COBOL ( shows my length of time in the trenches ) .
A new kind of computer engineering degree is not needed an established set of standards is required .
When a body of standardization is in place and true universal standards are established , then the quality of coding will become uniform .
I do doubt that this will happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Albeit true that there is a cadre of self proclaimed hackers in America that forsake all and any form of maintainability in the code they write this is generally not true of professionals that are trained at places like MIT, Waterloo, CalTech, or BCIT.
My experience as a gun for hire project saving consultant is that generally the absolute crappiest of source code comes from overseas out-sourcing (although, in all fairness, the worst examples I've come across are made in America).
It's not because the programmers in India, Vietnam, Romania are bad - some, if not many are outstanding.
It's because the managers are forcing poor work habits to increase productivity (and profit) - they are not paid for comments and proper variable names, only for the lines of code.
Professional computer programming is only about 50 years old.
As a profession it is virtually brand new and standards, except for core, common sense axioms, are mostly short lived fads ("Scrum" is about the most inane yet).
Even the basic tool, programming language, changes every few years.
LISP, Clarion, Delphi, PL/1, FORTRAN, C, C++, Java, and now C# were and are touted as the standard to work from.
I was first taught assembler and then COBOL (shows my length of time in the trenches).
A new kind of computer engineering degree is not needed an established set of standards is required.
When a body of standardization is in place and true universal standards are established, then the quality of coding will become uniform.
I do doubt that this will happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520463</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1246272360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software engineering is an art distinct from the mathematical concepts of computer science. Those who are self-taught and those who studied only CS are unlikely to have discovered all the important aspects of the production and maintenance of large, complex software projects--without many many years of experience, that is. McAllister is correct in this respect.</p><p>Our universities do a disservice by sticking students in computer science programs while software engineering is more aligned with the goals of the vast majority of students.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software engineering is an art distinct from the mathematical concepts of computer science .
Those who are self-taught and those who studied only CS are unlikely to have discovered all the important aspects of the production and maintenance of large , complex software projects--without many many years of experience , that is .
McAllister is correct in this respect.Our universities do a disservice by sticking students in computer science programs while software engineering is more aligned with the goals of the vast majority of students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software engineering is an art distinct from the mathematical concepts of computer science.
Those who are self-taught and those who studied only CS are unlikely to have discovered all the important aspects of the production and maintenance of large, complex software projects--without many many years of experience, that is.
McAllister is correct in this respect.Our universities do a disservice by sticking students in computer science programs while software engineering is more aligned with the goals of the vast majority of students.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519825</id>
	<title>Hackers who aren't hackers</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1246269960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?'"</p></div><p>If only we were more in love!  The thing is... the "cowboys" who can't shoot straight (e.g. write scalable, maintainable code) aren't real hackers anyway.  It's a lot easier to be able to bang something together with glue and nails than it is to truly hack development.  Any responsible hacker is going to know all about best practices, when to break them, and when to find new ones.  There is beauty in simplicity as well as in obscure complexity.  Whatever.  Let the next generation all take classes in SharePoint or some crap like that and the good programmers among us may have even better job security than we had hoped for!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today 's real-life business environment ?
' " If only we were more in love !
The thing is... the " cowboys " who ca n't shoot straight ( e.g .
write scalable , maintainable code ) are n't real hackers anyway .
It 's a lot easier to be able to bang something together with glue and nails than it is to truly hack development .
Any responsible hacker is going to know all about best practices , when to break them , and when to find new ones .
There is beauty in simplicity as well as in obscure complexity .
Whatever. Let the next generation all take classes in SharePoint or some crap like that and the good programmers among us may have even better job security than we had hoped for !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?
'"If only we were more in love!
The thing is... the "cowboys" who can't shoot straight (e.g.
write scalable, maintainable code) aren't real hackers anyway.
It's a lot easier to be able to bang something together with glue and nails than it is to truly hack development.
Any responsible hacker is going to know all about best practices, when to break them, and when to find new ones.
There is beauty in simplicity as well as in obscure complexity.
Whatever.  Let the next generation all take classes in SharePoint or some crap like that and the good programmers among us may have even better job security than we had hoped for!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</id>
	<title>Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hackers are those that take an axe and hack down a tree creating a mess in the process including casualties that offend the beauty of solutions.</p><p>Designers go about it systematically applying methods that bring the tree down without a mess or casualties.</p><p>Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.</p><p>Hacks usually have to be replaced when discovered in production systems that value scaling and reliability.</p><p>Hacks have saved me and I always replace them when possible since they are just so offensive and putrid that shivers evoke pain in my spine.</p><p>Design brings the best of software techniques to bear upon problems.</p><p>Software needs work. Iterative improvement. Hacks might be in there but in time they tend to get removed with designed systems or redesigned systems.</p><p>Hackers are not really programmers as they are to enamored with their hacking skills.</p><p>There is nothing redeeming about hacking, all of it is from the dark side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackers are those that take an axe and hack down a tree creating a mess in the process including casualties that offend the beauty of solutions.Designers go about it systematically applying methods that bring the tree down without a mess or casualties.Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.Hacks usually have to be replaced when discovered in production systems that value scaling and reliability.Hacks have saved me and I always replace them when possible since they are just so offensive and putrid that shivers evoke pain in my spine.Design brings the best of software techniques to bear upon problems.Software needs work .
Iterative improvement .
Hacks might be in there but in time they tend to get removed with designed systems or redesigned systems.Hackers are not really programmers as they are to enamored with their hacking skills.There is nothing redeeming about hacking , all of it is from the dark side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackers are those that take an axe and hack down a tree creating a mess in the process including casualties that offend the beauty of solutions.Designers go about it systematically applying methods that bring the tree down without a mess or casualties.Things like PERL are deeply disturbing to anyone with a sense of design.Hacks usually have to be replaced when discovered in production systems that value scaling and reliability.Hacks have saved me and I always replace them when possible since they are just so offensive and putrid that shivers evoke pain in my spine.Design brings the best of software techniques to bear upon problems.Software needs work.
Iterative improvement.
Hacks might be in there but in time they tend to get removed with designed systems or redesigned systems.Hackers are not really programmers as they are to enamored with their hacking skills.There is nothing redeeming about hacking, all of it is from the dark side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527745</id>
	<title>It all depends on what you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246374240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to hire assembly-line programmers who will faithfully implement your exact specs, you hire foreign programmers.  If you want somebody to actually be creative, you hire American programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to hire assembly-line programmers who will faithfully implement your exact specs , you hire foreign programmers .
If you want somebody to actually be creative , you hire American programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to hire assembly-line programmers who will faithfully implement your exact specs, you hire foreign programmers.
If you want somebody to actually be creative, you hire American programmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28592315</id>
	<title>Re:tigers vs lions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246876140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such coders will also tend to view any problem as a nail because they only know hammers. They have no clue of higher concepts; whatever C++ has to offer is the ultimate truth in object-oriented design. They'll need ten lines of code where I'll be done in three, then I'll add seven lines to do the error handling that they completely missed.</p><p>In other words, such types need to be micro-managed to the point where you write pseudo-code for them. At that point, you're better off coding everything yourself. So throw the code at them and let them put it into the repository. Oh, that doesn't work either because in their self-teaching phase they never needed to use source control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such coders will also tend to view any problem as a nail because they only know hammers .
They have no clue of higher concepts ; whatever C + + has to offer is the ultimate truth in object-oriented design .
They 'll need ten lines of code where I 'll be done in three , then I 'll add seven lines to do the error handling that they completely missed.In other words , such types need to be micro-managed to the point where you write pseudo-code for them .
At that point , you 're better off coding everything yourself .
So throw the code at them and let them put it into the repository .
Oh , that does n't work either because in their self-teaching phase they never needed to use source control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such coders will also tend to view any problem as a nail because they only know hammers.
They have no clue of higher concepts; whatever C++ has to offer is the ultimate truth in object-oriented design.
They'll need ten lines of code where I'll be done in three, then I'll add seven lines to do the error handling that they completely missed.In other words, such types need to be micro-managed to the point where you write pseudo-code for them.
At that point, you're better off coding everything yourself.
So throw the code at them and let them put it into the repository.
Oh, that doesn't work either because in their self-teaching phase they never needed to use source control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519551</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>FreonTrip</author>
	<datestamp>1246269060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flame on, you crazy bastard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flame on , you crazy bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flame on, you crazy bastard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881</id>
	<title>Re:Software engineering is not a new concept.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programming has become more of a commodity and so thankfully Computer Science isn't just about programming.</p><blockquote><div><p>there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.</p></div></blockquote><p>What exactly does this mean? If you want to learn about business, do an MBA. If you want to be a computer programmer, learn it yourself because it's not difficult enough to warrant an entire university degree devoted to it.</p><p>Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that. It's a mixture of the maths, physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing. Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow, not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country. Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced' at commodity rates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming has become more of a commodity and so thankfully Computer Science is n't just about programming.there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.What exactly does this mean ?
If you want to learn about business , do an MBA .
If you want to be a computer programmer , learn it yourself because it 's not difficult enough to warrant an entire university degree devoted to it.Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that .
It 's a mixture of the maths , physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing .
Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow , not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country .
Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced ' at commodity rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming has become more of a commodity and so thankfully Computer Science isn't just about programming.there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.What exactly does this mean?
If you want to learn about business, do an MBA.
If you want to be a computer programmer, learn it yourself because it's not difficult enough to warrant an entire university degree devoted to it.Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that.
It's a mixture of the maths, physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing.
Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow, not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country.
Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced' at commodity rates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519565</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, it's <i>lose</i>, Mr. Designer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , it 's lose , Mr. Designer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, it's lose, Mr. Designer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519835</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>zoips</author>
	<datestamp>1246270020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your solution to a made up problem is that everyone should use Notepad? Ok, maybe you'll make an exception for vi, what if I fall on the emacs side of that holy war?</p><p>I think you need to think this through again, as you've obviously let something obvious slide by...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your solution to a made up problem is that everyone should use Notepad ?
Ok , maybe you 'll make an exception for vi , what if I fall on the emacs side of that holy war ? I think you need to think this through again , as you 've obviously let something obvious slide by.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your solution to a made up problem is that everyone should use Notepad?
Ok, maybe you'll make an exception for vi, what if I fall on the emacs side of that holy war?I think you need to think this through again, as you've obviously let something obvious slide by...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</id>
	<title>How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>SirGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246268880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... instead of how to use a GUI to do 99\% of the programming for you ?</p><p>I still don't use a GUI, and I understand the guts of the programs better than the people who NEED their Eclipse, etc. to do the "grunt work" for them - (Umm.. if you don't understand the grunt work, how do you know that it is even NEEDED ?).   In general the code from IDE Jockeys/Junkies is pretty bad.  Their solution when things aren't working right ?  Add more memory to the system "It can't be my code malfunctioning, it must be a RAM limitation".  Rather than learning how to improve their own code and optimize things.</p><p>NOTE: I learned how to program on Punch Cards (this was in the 80s, BTW) and you also had to debug programs from printouts of the failures.(Debugging is ANOTHER lost art , but that's for a different topic) and I've been a software developer for almost 20 years.</p><p>I also have programmed in embedded systems with ASM where every BYTE of memory counted.  You couldn't waste 1K of garbage code for an IDE developed code base).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... instead of how to use a GUI to do 99 \ % of the programming for you ? I still do n't use a GUI , and I understand the guts of the programs better than the people who NEED their Eclipse , etc .
to do the " grunt work " for them - ( Umm.. if you do n't understand the grunt work , how do you know that it is even NEEDED ? ) .
In general the code from IDE Jockeys/Junkies is pretty bad .
Their solution when things are n't working right ?
Add more memory to the system " It ca n't be my code malfunctioning , it must be a RAM limitation " .
Rather than learning how to improve their own code and optimize things.NOTE : I learned how to program on Punch Cards ( this was in the 80s , BTW ) and you also had to debug programs from printouts of the failures .
( Debugging is ANOTHER lost art , but that 's for a different topic ) and I 've been a software developer for almost 20 years.I also have programmed in embedded systems with ASM where every BYTE of memory counted .
You could n't waste 1K of garbage code for an IDE developed code base ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... instead of how to use a GUI to do 99\% of the programming for you ?I still don't use a GUI, and I understand the guts of the programs better than the people who NEED their Eclipse, etc.
to do the "grunt work" for them - (Umm.. if you don't understand the grunt work, how do you know that it is even NEEDED ?).
In general the code from IDE Jockeys/Junkies is pretty bad.
Their solution when things aren't working right ?
Add more memory to the system "It can't be my code malfunctioning, it must be a RAM limitation".
Rather than learning how to improve their own code and optimize things.NOTE: I learned how to program on Punch Cards (this was in the 80s, BTW) and you also had to debug programs from printouts of the failures.
(Debugging is ANOTHER lost art , but that's for a different topic) and I've been a software developer for almost 20 years.I also have programmed in embedded systems with ASM where every BYTE of memory counted.
You couldn't waste 1K of garbage code for an IDE developed code base).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525259</id>
	<title>Re:Unemployable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>I thought our messy unmaintainable code made us unfireable.</i> <br> <br>
It also makes you un-promotable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/<br> <br>
--</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought our messy unmaintainable code made us unfireable .
It also makes you un-promotable : -/ --</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I thought our messy unmaintainable code made us unfireable.
It also makes you un-promotable :-/ 
--</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519651</id>
	<title>tha'ts a very well thought out argument</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246269360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>against the concept of genius</p><p>in other words, not a very useful argument</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>against the concept of geniusin other words , not a very useful argument</tokentext>
<sentencetext>against the concept of geniusin other words, not a very useful argument</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522007</id>
	<title>Physics? Philosophy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in? Where does philosophy fit in?</p><p>I suspect that most CS graduates can be divided into 3 groups: 1) Those who debase themselves in the eyes of their professors by "merely" performing software development. 2) Those who preserve their purity by staying in academia and thus propagate the meme that CS isn't about programming. 3) Those who are unemployed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in ?
Where does philosophy fit in ? I suspect that most CS graduates can be divided into 3 groups : 1 ) Those who debase themselves in the eyes of their professors by " merely " performing software development .
2 ) Those who preserve their purity by staying in academia and thus propagate the meme that CS is n't about programming .
3 ) Those who are unemployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in?
Where does philosophy fit in?I suspect that most CS graduates can be divided into 3 groups: 1) Those who debase themselves in the eyes of their professors by "merely" performing software development.
2) Those who preserve their purity by staying in academia and thus propagate the meme that CS isn't about programming.
3) Those who are unemployed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526465</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246366800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the kind of thing that frustrates me on a regular basis. I am always asked to try and explain things to people who just do not have the capacity to "get it".
<br> <br>I'm not a programmer, but I do end up playing Unix admin for a particular customer of mine. I'm good at it because I understand how the system works as a whole, I understand what commands do and how to use them to perform the tasks I want to perform. <br>I am surrounded by people who assure me that the documentation (shoddy at best, sporadic and dangerous at worse) is enough and they can "help" by following those directions.<br>One guy who has been here for around five years still did not know what it meant when he typed 'su - <i>user</i>'; he just did it because it was in the documentation. Five years and he never once wondered what the hell he was doing when he typed things into the pretty command line. ("What's a command line?" "THE MONOCHROME SCREEN THINGER THERE WITH THE BLINKY CURSOR AND... OH YE GODS JUST FORGET IT")
<br>The fact that the root password is out there in the documentation scares the <i>living shit</i> out of me, since guess who will get to fix it when they do something awful?
<br> <br>
Sorry for the rant, I guess it was a bit off-topic, but it was supporting your point... because I am one of the few people in this office who doesn't have a degree in anything computer-related (yet) and I'm almost entirely self-taught.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of thing that frustrates me on a regular basis .
I am always asked to try and explain things to people who just do not have the capacity to " get it " .
I 'm not a programmer , but I do end up playing Unix admin for a particular customer of mine .
I 'm good at it because I understand how the system works as a whole , I understand what commands do and how to use them to perform the tasks I want to perform .
I am surrounded by people who assure me that the documentation ( shoddy at best , sporadic and dangerous at worse ) is enough and they can " help " by following those directions.One guy who has been here for around five years still did not know what it meant when he typed 'su - user ' ; he just did it because it was in the documentation .
Five years and he never once wondered what the hell he was doing when he typed things into the pretty command line .
( " What 's a command line ?
" " THE MONOCHROME SCREEN THINGER THERE WITH THE BLINKY CURSOR AND... OH YE GODS JUST FORGET IT " ) The fact that the root password is out there in the documentation scares the living shit out of me , since guess who will get to fix it when they do something awful ?
Sorry for the rant , I guess it was a bit off-topic , but it was supporting your point... because I am one of the few people in this office who does n't have a degree in anything computer-related ( yet ) and I 'm almost entirely self-taught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of thing that frustrates me on a regular basis.
I am always asked to try and explain things to people who just do not have the capacity to "get it".
I'm not a programmer, but I do end up playing Unix admin for a particular customer of mine.
I'm good at it because I understand how the system works as a whole, I understand what commands do and how to use them to perform the tasks I want to perform.
I am surrounded by people who assure me that the documentation (shoddy at best, sporadic and dangerous at worse) is enough and they can "help" by following those directions.One guy who has been here for around five years still did not know what it meant when he typed 'su - user'; he just did it because it was in the documentation.
Five years and he never once wondered what the hell he was doing when he typed things into the pretty command line.
("What's a command line?
" "THE MONOCHROME SCREEN THINGER THERE WITH THE BLINKY CURSOR AND... OH YE GODS JUST FORGET IT")
The fact that the root password is out there in the documentation scares the living shit out of me, since guess who will get to fix it when they do something awful?
Sorry for the rant, I guess it was a bit off-topic, but it was supporting your point... because I am one of the few people in this office who doesn't have a degree in anything computer-related (yet) and I'm almost entirely self-taught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519689</id>
	<title>Not just developers</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The technology industry has moved beyond its infancy and become a fundamental part of most businesses.  I'm a systems administrator and I started working in IT (MIS at the time) when I graduated from high school in 1996.  In my childhood, I spent a lot of time hacking phone systems, hanging out at 2600 meetings, and doing all sorts of other not so legit activities with computers.  I was interested in whatever systems I could get my hands on, whether it was a System 75 running Audix, a 5ESS/SS7 switch, Linux, Cisco routers, whatever.  I read Internetworking with TCP/IP by Comer not because I was in college and had to, but because I wanted to understand what those around me were talking about.  All of that development left me with a broad skillset that lacked focus.  I developed a very high level understanding of how systems interconnect, and by working for some very good bosses, I developed an understanding of how the systems support the business processes of the organizations I worked for.  I'm very much a stereotypical "Jack of all trades, master of none." sort of administrator.</p><p>When there weren't many people out there with an interest in or hands on aptitude with computer systems, people with my skillsets were in high demand.  In the small business sector, where companies can't afford separate DBAs, system admins, network engineers and so on, I fit in quite well.  In the corporate world, I can't even get a job interview because they are looking for individuals who are highly focused on a single aspect of the overall network.  The same thing holds true for developers.</p><p>"Back in the day", being able to write code to get the job done was a mystical science for management types.  Skilled coders were in short supply, so people who could hack programs together were employable.  In this day and age, anybody can go to any number of colleges or trade schools and learn how to write decent code.  Anybody can go to college or trade school and get an MCSE, or a CCIE, or any number of system/network specific certifications.  Managers and employers want known quantities.  They want developers who are going to deliver predictable code.  They want system admins who are going to follow industry best practices.</p><p>The technology industry has grown up.  We aren't in the days of "Just make it work" anymore.  We're in the days of refining how things work.  Best practices have been established.  Frameworks for doing things have been established.  Companies are just looking for people who can "Make application X do A and B." reliably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The technology industry has moved beyond its infancy and become a fundamental part of most businesses .
I 'm a systems administrator and I started working in IT ( MIS at the time ) when I graduated from high school in 1996 .
In my childhood , I spent a lot of time hacking phone systems , hanging out at 2600 meetings , and doing all sorts of other not so legit activities with computers .
I was interested in whatever systems I could get my hands on , whether it was a System 75 running Audix , a 5ESS/SS7 switch , Linux , Cisco routers , whatever .
I read Internetworking with TCP/IP by Comer not because I was in college and had to , but because I wanted to understand what those around me were talking about .
All of that development left me with a broad skillset that lacked focus .
I developed a very high level understanding of how systems interconnect , and by working for some very good bosses , I developed an understanding of how the systems support the business processes of the organizations I worked for .
I 'm very much a stereotypical " Jack of all trades , master of none .
" sort of administrator.When there were n't many people out there with an interest in or hands on aptitude with computer systems , people with my skillsets were in high demand .
In the small business sector , where companies ca n't afford separate DBAs , system admins , network engineers and so on , I fit in quite well .
In the corporate world , I ca n't even get a job interview because they are looking for individuals who are highly focused on a single aspect of the overall network .
The same thing holds true for developers .
" Back in the day " , being able to write code to get the job done was a mystical science for management types .
Skilled coders were in short supply , so people who could hack programs together were employable .
In this day and age , anybody can go to any number of colleges or trade schools and learn how to write decent code .
Anybody can go to college or trade school and get an MCSE , or a CCIE , or any number of system/network specific certifications .
Managers and employers want known quantities .
They want developers who are going to deliver predictable code .
They want system admins who are going to follow industry best practices.The technology industry has grown up .
We are n't in the days of " Just make it work " anymore .
We 're in the days of refining how things work .
Best practices have been established .
Frameworks for doing things have been established .
Companies are just looking for people who can " Make application X do A and B .
" reliably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technology industry has moved beyond its infancy and become a fundamental part of most businesses.
I'm a systems administrator and I started working in IT (MIS at the time) when I graduated from high school in 1996.
In my childhood, I spent a lot of time hacking phone systems, hanging out at 2600 meetings, and doing all sorts of other not so legit activities with computers.
I was interested in whatever systems I could get my hands on, whether it was a System 75 running Audix, a 5ESS/SS7 switch, Linux, Cisco routers, whatever.
I read Internetworking with TCP/IP by Comer not because I was in college and had to, but because I wanted to understand what those around me were talking about.
All of that development left me with a broad skillset that lacked focus.
I developed a very high level understanding of how systems interconnect, and by working for some very good bosses, I developed an understanding of how the systems support the business processes of the organizations I worked for.
I'm very much a stereotypical "Jack of all trades, master of none.
" sort of administrator.When there weren't many people out there with an interest in or hands on aptitude with computer systems, people with my skillsets were in high demand.
In the small business sector, where companies can't afford separate DBAs, system admins, network engineers and so on, I fit in quite well.
In the corporate world, I can't even get a job interview because they are looking for individuals who are highly focused on a single aspect of the overall network.
The same thing holds true for developers.
"Back in the day", being able to write code to get the job done was a mystical science for management types.
Skilled coders were in short supply, so people who could hack programs together were employable.
In this day and age, anybody can go to any number of colleges or trade schools and learn how to write decent code.
Anybody can go to college or trade school and get an MCSE, or a CCIE, or any number of system/network specific certifications.
Managers and employers want known quantities.
They want developers who are going to deliver predictable code.
They want system admins who are going to follow industry best practices.The technology industry has grown up.
We aren't in the days of "Just make it work" anymore.
We're in the days of refining how things work.
Best practices have been established.
Frameworks for doing things have been established.
Companies are just looking for people who can "Make application X do A and B.
" reliably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519459</id>
	<title>Unemployable?</title>
	<author>outsider007</author>
	<datestamp>1246268760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought our messy unmaintainable code made us unfireable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought our messy unmaintainable code made us unfireable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought our messy unmaintainable code made us unfireable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522085</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246280760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is whether or not your committed to the "cult of the cryptic" as hackers are by definition since, as some have said, a hacker is someone who enjoys hacking through complexities to get a make a path of understanding.</p><p>Sure in computing we need to understand complex systems but it's one thing to understand a complex system and quite another to be "devoted" to keeping it cryptic as most hackers do.</p><p>As a person committed to keeping systems as simple as possible to get the job done I'm committed to simplicity and elegance of solutions rather than ugly hacked by an axe.</p><p>A home built by a hacker would have randomly hacked lengths of wood for the walls of uneven thickness stuck together by PERL Glue that they've sniffed too much over the years. Not many homes are designed that way for good reason and yet no one even questions that design is required for building a proper home.</p><p>A home built by a designer uses measured boards of wood and nails and screws and special connectors in earthquake zones not glue.</p><p>A hacker puts in power outlets into one basement renovation layered on top of many others ending up with over 17 power outlets most illegal and highly dangerous fire hazards. Yes, this mess was discovered in a person's real home on the show Holms on Homes when they tore apart a basement to properly renovate it properly with a principle called DESIGN.</p><p>Design wins in home and building construction for a reason. It simply works better than hacking.</p><p>Design wins over hacking when it comes to philosophy and understanding of Nature. With design and the scientific method we end up with the Theory of Evolution, and Quantum Physics and General and Special Relativity. With hacks we end up with - ick run for the hills - religion and cults and the GPL madness not to mention Intelligent Design which has neither intelligence nor design (they just hijacked the word design because they know how well successful it is in man made pursuits).</p><p>So, hack all you want, but if you want to be a REAL PROGRAMMER choose the simplicity and rigorous methods of design!</p><p>May you hack no more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is whether or not your committed to the " cult of the cryptic " as hackers are by definition since , as some have said , a hacker is someone who enjoys hacking through complexities to get a make a path of understanding.Sure in computing we need to understand complex systems but it 's one thing to understand a complex system and quite another to be " devoted " to keeping it cryptic as most hackers do.As a person committed to keeping systems as simple as possible to get the job done I 'm committed to simplicity and elegance of solutions rather than ugly hacked by an axe.A home built by a hacker would have randomly hacked lengths of wood for the walls of uneven thickness stuck together by PERL Glue that they 've sniffed too much over the years .
Not many homes are designed that way for good reason and yet no one even questions that design is required for building a proper home.A home built by a designer uses measured boards of wood and nails and screws and special connectors in earthquake zones not glue.A hacker puts in power outlets into one basement renovation layered on top of many others ending up with over 17 power outlets most illegal and highly dangerous fire hazards .
Yes , this mess was discovered in a person 's real home on the show Holms on Homes when they tore apart a basement to properly renovate it properly with a principle called DESIGN.Design wins in home and building construction for a reason .
It simply works better than hacking.Design wins over hacking when it comes to philosophy and understanding of Nature .
With design and the scientific method we end up with the Theory of Evolution , and Quantum Physics and General and Special Relativity .
With hacks we end up with - ick run for the hills - religion and cults and the GPL madness not to mention Intelligent Design which has neither intelligence nor design ( they just hijacked the word design because they know how well successful it is in man made pursuits ) .So , hack all you want , but if you want to be a REAL PROGRAMMER choose the simplicity and rigorous methods of design ! May you hack no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is whether or not your committed to the "cult of the cryptic" as hackers are by definition since, as some have said, a hacker is someone who enjoys hacking through complexities to get a make a path of understanding.Sure in computing we need to understand complex systems but it's one thing to understand a complex system and quite another to be "devoted" to keeping it cryptic as most hackers do.As a person committed to keeping systems as simple as possible to get the job done I'm committed to simplicity and elegance of solutions rather than ugly hacked by an axe.A home built by a hacker would have randomly hacked lengths of wood for the walls of uneven thickness stuck together by PERL Glue that they've sniffed too much over the years.
Not many homes are designed that way for good reason and yet no one even questions that design is required for building a proper home.A home built by a designer uses measured boards of wood and nails and screws and special connectors in earthquake zones not glue.A hacker puts in power outlets into one basement renovation layered on top of many others ending up with over 17 power outlets most illegal and highly dangerous fire hazards.
Yes, this mess was discovered in a person's real home on the show Holms on Homes when they tore apart a basement to properly renovate it properly with a principle called DESIGN.Design wins in home and building construction for a reason.
It simply works better than hacking.Design wins over hacking when it comes to philosophy and understanding of Nature.
With design and the scientific method we end up with the Theory of Evolution, and Quantum Physics and General and Special Relativity.
With hacks we end up with - ick run for the hills - religion and cults and the GPL madness not to mention Intelligent Design which has neither intelligence nor design (they just hijacked the word design because they know how well successful it is in man made pursuits).So, hack all you want, but if you want to be a REAL PROGRAMMER choose the simplicity and rigorous methods of design!May you hack no more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519699</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actively helpful.</p><p>Besides occasionally helping to solve an "unsolvable" problem, there is distinct difference between people who <i>like</i> figuring things out and coding, and people who <i>just</i> code.</p><p>People with the "hacker ethic" often have experience with a wide range of languages or disciplines, since they are interesting in knowing many things. This gives this a wide array of knowledge to draw on. The Mythbusters, in their RSA speech, said that they don't know a lot about any subject, but <i>they don't know a lot about <b>a lot</b> of subjects</i>, helping them succeed where others run into stumbling blocks. Same thing for hackers.</p><p>Of course businesses, at least at some point, <i>like</i> the hacker ethic. Many businesses, at least initially, would rather have the hacked up system that works and they can make money off of than the "correct" answer of "it's too complicated" or "it can't be done". Sure this code can become a headache later (a very big one), but that's really because people didn't invest enough in paying off the technical debt in the code. If they had improved it over time it wouldn't be a large headache later.</p><p>The people I've run into who don't have at least a little of the hacker ethic aren't good programmers. They may be able to program, but they don't move outside their little world of what they know how to do and what they use. The only improve when forced to (by being given a new assignment, etc) and they only do what is necessary to finish that assignment. Any knowledge they gained that they didn't need, they gained because they didn't realize they didn't need it.</p><p>But if they were the kind of person who <i>wanted</i> to learn that kind of thing, they'd have the hacker ethic.</p><p>It's a good thing. It keeps programmers sharp and interested. It helps them have more of the necessary skills when a new challenge arrives... or at least be able to pick up that skill faster/easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actively helpful.Besides occasionally helping to solve an " unsolvable " problem , there is distinct difference between people who like figuring things out and coding , and people who just code.People with the " hacker ethic " often have experience with a wide range of languages or disciplines , since they are interesting in knowing many things .
This gives this a wide array of knowledge to draw on .
The Mythbusters , in their RSA speech , said that they do n't know a lot about any subject , but they do n't know a lot about a lot of subjects , helping them succeed where others run into stumbling blocks .
Same thing for hackers.Of course businesses , at least at some point , like the hacker ethic .
Many businesses , at least initially , would rather have the hacked up system that works and they can make money off of than the " correct " answer of " it 's too complicated " or " it ca n't be done " .
Sure this code can become a headache later ( a very big one ) , but that 's really because people did n't invest enough in paying off the technical debt in the code .
If they had improved it over time it would n't be a large headache later.The people I 've run into who do n't have at least a little of the hacker ethic are n't good programmers .
They may be able to program , but they do n't move outside their little world of what they know how to do and what they use .
The only improve when forced to ( by being given a new assignment , etc ) and they only do what is necessary to finish that assignment .
Any knowledge they gained that they did n't need , they gained because they did n't realize they did n't need it.But if they were the kind of person who wanted to learn that kind of thing , they 'd have the hacker ethic.It 's a good thing .
It keeps programmers sharp and interested .
It helps them have more of the necessary skills when a new challenge arrives... or at least be able to pick up that skill faster/easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actively helpful.Besides occasionally helping to solve an "unsolvable" problem, there is distinct difference between people who like figuring things out and coding, and people who just code.People with the "hacker ethic" often have experience with a wide range of languages or disciplines, since they are interesting in knowing many things.
This gives this a wide array of knowledge to draw on.
The Mythbusters, in their RSA speech, said that they don't know a lot about any subject, but they don't know a lot about a lot of subjects, helping them succeed where others run into stumbling blocks.
Same thing for hackers.Of course businesses, at least at some point, like the hacker ethic.
Many businesses, at least initially, would rather have the hacked up system that works and they can make money off of than the "correct" answer of "it's too complicated" or "it can't be done".
Sure this code can become a headache later (a very big one), but that's really because people didn't invest enough in paying off the technical debt in the code.
If they had improved it over time it wouldn't be a large headache later.The people I've run into who don't have at least a little of the hacker ethic aren't good programmers.
They may be able to program, but they don't move outside their little world of what they know how to do and what they use.
The only improve when forced to (by being given a new assignment, etc) and they only do what is necessary to finish that assignment.
Any knowledge they gained that they didn't need, they gained because they didn't realize they didn't need it.But if they were the kind of person who wanted to learn that kind of thing, they'd have the hacker ethic.It's a good thing.
It keeps programmers sharp and interested.
It helps them have more of the necessary skills when a new challenge arrives... or at least be able to pick up that skill faster/easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519629</id>
	<title>Today's Real Life Business Environment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today's Real Life Business Environment was created by the Hacker Ethic.  Basically, the enterprise is defined as stuff that hackers create that is standardized into something that drones can operate cheaply, consistently and effectively.  The limitations that exist are based on the lack of most worker's skills, rather than the "obtuseness" of so-called hackers.</p><p>I'm well aware that there are head cases out there who can't cooperate with anyone, but who created the original standards for computing and the Internet?  Academics and hacker-types, which are not mutually exclusive groups.  The Hacker mentality is very cooperative... just not social in the sense of physical connection.  As long as they are safe in their bastions, hackers tend to work together on topics of mutual interest, and very effectively at that.</p><p>The problem is not the developer to developer interface, unless you insist on hiring literally minded drones, it is the business to hacker interface... which can be an issue.  Business people like drones because they are cheap and predictable, even in their failures.  The management of these Indian development groups smooths over the issues that hackers would bring straight to them.  If the code isn't working, drone computing means you throw more developers and more time at it as long as it makes the deadline.  Even quality can suffer a little.  The hacker mentality means finding a better way of looking at the problem that isn't in the book or even telling the business that they are full of shit.</p><p>The interface problem is real.  Business has a right to be able to make goals.  However, their problems are not with turning hackers into drones, it is how they can work to interface with the hackers, perhaps with support staff such as better testers and technical writers.  I have never been at a company that could use drone developers more than it could simply use some good tech writers, but for some reason the business hires the drones and leaves the people with the communication skills in the dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's Real Life Business Environment was created by the Hacker Ethic .
Basically , the enterprise is defined as stuff that hackers create that is standardized into something that drones can operate cheaply , consistently and effectively .
The limitations that exist are based on the lack of most worker 's skills , rather than the " obtuseness " of so-called hackers.I 'm well aware that there are head cases out there who ca n't cooperate with anyone , but who created the original standards for computing and the Internet ?
Academics and hacker-types , which are not mutually exclusive groups .
The Hacker mentality is very cooperative... just not social in the sense of physical connection .
As long as they are safe in their bastions , hackers tend to work together on topics of mutual interest , and very effectively at that.The problem is not the developer to developer interface , unless you insist on hiring literally minded drones , it is the business to hacker interface... which can be an issue .
Business people like drones because they are cheap and predictable , even in their failures .
The management of these Indian development groups smooths over the issues that hackers would bring straight to them .
If the code is n't working , drone computing means you throw more developers and more time at it as long as it makes the deadline .
Even quality can suffer a little .
The hacker mentality means finding a better way of looking at the problem that is n't in the book or even telling the business that they are full of shit.The interface problem is real .
Business has a right to be able to make goals .
However , their problems are not with turning hackers into drones , it is how they can work to interface with the hackers , perhaps with support staff such as better testers and technical writers .
I have never been at a company that could use drone developers more than it could simply use some good tech writers , but for some reason the business hires the drones and leaves the people with the communication skills in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's Real Life Business Environment was created by the Hacker Ethic.
Basically, the enterprise is defined as stuff that hackers create that is standardized into something that drones can operate cheaply, consistently and effectively.
The limitations that exist are based on the lack of most worker's skills, rather than the "obtuseness" of so-called hackers.I'm well aware that there are head cases out there who can't cooperate with anyone, but who created the original standards for computing and the Internet?
Academics and hacker-types, which are not mutually exclusive groups.
The Hacker mentality is very cooperative... just not social in the sense of physical connection.
As long as they are safe in their bastions, hackers tend to work together on topics of mutual interest, and very effectively at that.The problem is not the developer to developer interface, unless you insist on hiring literally minded drones, it is the business to hacker interface... which can be an issue.
Business people like drones because they are cheap and predictable, even in their failures.
The management of these Indian development groups smooths over the issues that hackers would bring straight to them.
If the code isn't working, drone computing means you throw more developers and more time at it as long as it makes the deadline.
Even quality can suffer a little.
The hacker mentality means finding a better way of looking at the problem that isn't in the book or even telling the business that they are full of shit.The interface problem is real.
Business has a right to be able to make goals.
However, their problems are not with turning hackers into drones, it is how they can work to interface with the hackers, perhaps with support staff such as better testers and technical writers.
I have never been at a company that could use drone developers more than it could simply use some good tech writers, but for some reason the business hires the drones and leaves the people with the communication skills in the dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520523</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1246272600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure--and mechanical engineers should just learn the mathematical models of bridge design in school. It's not the school's job to each them case studies and practical skills. They can learn that from experience after the first few bridges collapse.</p><p>(If you missed my point: it is horribly horribly stupid for schools to excuse themselves from teaching things simply because they could be theoretically be discerned through "experience.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure--and mechanical engineers should just learn the mathematical models of bridge design in school .
It 's not the school 's job to each them case studies and practical skills .
They can learn that from experience after the first few bridges collapse .
( If you missed my point : it is horribly horribly stupid for schools to excuse themselves from teaching things simply because they could be theoretically be discerned through " experience .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure--and mechanical engineers should just learn the mathematical models of bridge design in school.
It's not the school's job to each them case studies and practical skills.
They can learn that from experience after the first few bridges collapse.
(If you missed my point: it is horribly horribly stupid for schools to excuse themselves from teaching things simply because they could be theoretically be discerned through "experience.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519615</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246269300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can that possibly be flamebait when the frigging posting is asking about how hackers are damaging the software industry!!!! The POSTING ITSELF IS FLAMEBAIT YOU FOOLS!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can that possibly be flamebait when the frigging posting is asking about how hackers are damaging the software industry ! ! ! !
The POSTING ITSELF IS FLAMEBAIT YOU FOOLS ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can that possibly be flamebait when the frigging posting is asking about how hackers are damaging the software industry!!!!
The POSTING ITSELF IS FLAMEBAIT YOU FOOLS!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519695</id>
	<title>mod 0P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>your s=pare time</htmltext>
<tokenext>your s = pare time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your s=pare time</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526575</id>
	<title>Really Disagree</title>
	<author>creeves1982</author>
	<datestamp>1246367880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the hallmark of today's programming generation in America &#226;" are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.'</p> </div><p>Clearly McAllister has not worked in a small to medium firm.  I myself am a "coding cowboy" and I myself am appalled at some of the "professional"  code out there.  I have been working for the past year to clean up code that looks like speggetti thrown against the wall.  Just take a look at the articles posted on the daily wtf (www.thedtailywtf.com) and you will see all the in-organized, un-maintainable code thats out there in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the hallmark of today 's programming generation in America   " are technically proficient , McAllister writes , 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term , and they 're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards .
' Clearly McAllister has not worked in a small to medium firm .
I myself am a " coding cowboy " and I myself am appalled at some of the " professional " code out there .
I have been working for the past year to clean up code that looks like speggetti thrown against the wall .
Just take a look at the articles posted on the daily wtf ( www.thedtailywtf.com ) and you will see all the in-organized , un-maintainable code thats out there in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the hallmark of today's programming generation in America â" are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.
' Clearly McAllister has not worked in a small to medium firm.
I myself am a "coding cowboy" and I myself am appalled at some of the "professional"  code out there.
I have been working for the past year to clean up code that looks like speggetti thrown against the wall.
Just take a look at the articles posted on the daily wtf (www.thedtailywtf.com) and you will see all the in-organized, un-maintainable code thats out there in the world.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524905</id>
	<title>Research, Rigor, and ROI</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246303860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does research generate more or less long-run ROI in the corporation than rigor? Is there a place for both approaches? Assuming you have a proficient software engineer of each type, how does the corporation maximize shareholder value with each skill set?</p><p>If he had posed those questions, and maybe troubled himself to make a passing attempt at exploring the answer space, this article might be interesting. As it is, it is a mindless hit piece. Corporations need a balance of free-running and rigorous direction. This is particularly true in the high tech sector, which is far from a done deal. This stuff is evolving at lightning pace; exploration has solid value, as does mechanism. Consider what happens when you rigidly apply best practices in our field; you wind up with a system that is heavily coupled to CORBA, RUP, EJB, MDA, SOAP, and a dozen other zombie acronyms.</p><p>The problem is not research versus rigor, it is knowing how to apply each to appropriate problems. That is supposed to be a management task, but they don't understand our field and so don't know how to let a good horse run. They also do not know how to distinguish a good horse from a gluepot, so they do not trust either. And so management tends to prefer the rigorous engineer -- not because he generates more ROI, but because they understand him better. I must cut this short as I am starting to spin off topic, but I highly recommend reading Peter Drucker's exploration of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge\_worker" title="wikipedia.org">the knowledge worker</a> [wikipedia.org] to see where my point was about to wander.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does research generate more or less long-run ROI in the corporation than rigor ?
Is there a place for both approaches ?
Assuming you have a proficient software engineer of each type , how does the corporation maximize shareholder value with each skill set ? If he had posed those questions , and maybe troubled himself to make a passing attempt at exploring the answer space , this article might be interesting .
As it is , it is a mindless hit piece .
Corporations need a balance of free-running and rigorous direction .
This is particularly true in the high tech sector , which is far from a done deal .
This stuff is evolving at lightning pace ; exploration has solid value , as does mechanism .
Consider what happens when you rigidly apply best practices in our field ; you wind up with a system that is heavily coupled to CORBA , RUP , EJB , MDA , SOAP , and a dozen other zombie acronyms.The problem is not research versus rigor , it is knowing how to apply each to appropriate problems .
That is supposed to be a management task , but they do n't understand our field and so do n't know how to let a good horse run .
They also do not know how to distinguish a good horse from a gluepot , so they do not trust either .
And so management tends to prefer the rigorous engineer -- not because he generates more ROI , but because they understand him better .
I must cut this short as I am starting to spin off topic , but I highly recommend reading Peter Drucker 's exploration of the knowledge worker [ wikipedia.org ] to see where my point was about to wander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does research generate more or less long-run ROI in the corporation than rigor?
Is there a place for both approaches?
Assuming you have a proficient software engineer of each type, how does the corporation maximize shareholder value with each skill set?If he had posed those questions, and maybe troubled himself to make a passing attempt at exploring the answer space, this article might be interesting.
As it is, it is a mindless hit piece.
Corporations need a balance of free-running and rigorous direction.
This is particularly true in the high tech sector, which is far from a done deal.
This stuff is evolving at lightning pace; exploration has solid value, as does mechanism.
Consider what happens when you rigidly apply best practices in our field; you wind up with a system that is heavily coupled to CORBA, RUP, EJB, MDA, SOAP, and a dozen other zombie acronyms.The problem is not research versus rigor, it is knowing how to apply each to appropriate problems.
That is supposed to be a management task, but they don't understand our field and so don't know how to let a good horse run.
They also do not know how to distinguish a good horse from a gluepot, so they do not trust either.
And so management tends to prefer the rigorous engineer -- not because he generates more ROI, but because they understand him better.
I must cut this short as I am starting to spin off topic, but I highly recommend reading Peter Drucker's exploration of the knowledge worker [wikipedia.org] to see where my point was about to wander.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519809</id>
	<title>Hacker Ethic?</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1246269900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hacker's don't have ethics. I say this expecting to be taken with a grain of salt. As an example, is there such a thing as "burglar ethics?" One might be quick to point out a TV show with a pair of felons that break into your house to prove a point that your security sucks, but I think that's about as far as they could go.<br> <br>
To break into someone's something, is a violation of that someone's privacy. Whether or not you steal, or steal and extort, is moot.<br> <br>Now, on the other hand, I think what the author may be confused on, is actually what I would call "Reverse Engineering/Engineering Ethics." A good programmer isn't so much a "hacker" as he is an "engineer." Of course, with our (USA) Federal government what it is (in league with foreign socialists) it is a lot easier to convey a negative connotation to the term "reverse engineer" by using the term "hacker." Please don't misunderstand me. I'm simply trying to state that "hackers" don't really have ethics, and that the author is really talking about "reverse engineers" who actually do have ethics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacker 's do n't have ethics .
I say this expecting to be taken with a grain of salt .
As an example , is there such a thing as " burglar ethics ?
" One might be quick to point out a TV show with a pair of felons that break into your house to prove a point that your security sucks , but I think that 's about as far as they could go .
To break into someone 's something , is a violation of that someone 's privacy .
Whether or not you steal , or steal and extort , is moot .
Now , on the other hand , I think what the author may be confused on , is actually what I would call " Reverse Engineering/Engineering Ethics .
" A good programmer is n't so much a " hacker " as he is an " engineer .
" Of course , with our ( USA ) Federal government what it is ( in league with foreign socialists ) it is a lot easier to convey a negative connotation to the term " reverse engineer " by using the term " hacker .
" Please do n't misunderstand me .
I 'm simply trying to state that " hackers " do n't really have ethics , and that the author is really talking about " reverse engineers " who actually do have ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacker's don't have ethics.
I say this expecting to be taken with a grain of salt.
As an example, is there such a thing as "burglar ethics?
" One might be quick to point out a TV show with a pair of felons that break into your house to prove a point that your security sucks, but I think that's about as far as they could go.
To break into someone's something, is a violation of that someone's privacy.
Whether or not you steal, or steal and extort, is moot.
Now, on the other hand, I think what the author may be confused on, is actually what I would call "Reverse Engineering/Engineering Ethics.
" A good programmer isn't so much a "hacker" as he is an "engineer.
" Of course, with our (USA) Federal government what it is (in league with foreign socialists) it is a lot easier to convey a negative connotation to the term "reverse engineer" by using the term "hacker.
" Please don't misunderstand me.
I'm simply trying to state that "hackers" don't really have ethics, and that the author is really talking about "reverse engineers" who actually do have ethics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519639</id>
	<title>Re:Software engineering is not a new concept.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...</p></div><p>Flamebait. The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot. Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always true</p></div><p>That's barely a living wage in most of the cities where a programmer has a likelyhood of making a living. i.e. there are more than a few hundred companies that employ people in software development.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And though HTC 's Vineet Nayar 's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...Flamebait .
The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot .
Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always trueThat 's barely a living wage in most of the cities where a programmer has a likelyhood of making a living .
i.e. there are more than a few hundred companies that employ people in software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...Flamebait.
The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot.
Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always trueThat's barely a living wage in most of the cities where a programmer has a likelyhood of making a living.
i.e. there are more than a few hundred companies that employ people in software development.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523687</id>
	<title>Re:Computer science is irrelevant to business.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah... All those worthless computer science designing the tools you use every day...</p><p>The answer to all of your questions is "more than you think."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah... All those worthless computer science designing the tools you use every day...The answer to all of your questions is " more than you think .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah... All those worthless computer science designing the tools you use every day...The answer to all of your questions is "more than you think.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520359</id>
	<title>At least flame the right guy</title>
	<author>consonant</author>
	<datestamp>1246271940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vineet Nayar does not 'belong' to HTC. he is the CEO of HCL Technologies. HTC is a Taiwan-based mobile handset manufacturer (among other things), and a pretty good one at that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vineet Nayar does not 'belong ' to HTC .
he is the CEO of HCL Technologies .
HTC is a Taiwan-based mobile handset manufacturer ( among other things ) , and a pretty good one at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vineet Nayar does not 'belong' to HTC.
he is the CEO of HCL Technologies.
HTC is a Taiwan-based mobile handset manufacturer (among other things), and a pretty good one at that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</id>
	<title>Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me make this as clear as I can make it: <b>Neil McAllister is an idiot. Stop posting his "stories".</b> </p><blockquote><div><p>To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' -- the hallmark of today's programming generation in America -- are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>And yet no evidence is offered as to why that's true. It simply is. Accept it on face value.</p><p>Not.</p><p>As a "self-taught coder" (remove the "cowboy", because that has completely different implications) I am regularly frustrated by the coding practices of my more learned colleagues. Or more precisely, my colleagues who have more college backing behind their code.</p><p>Bull^H^H^Hachlor's Degrees, Masters Degrees, PhDs, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day they still cram code into an editor with little regard for the reasoning behind the coding practices they follow. In result, those practices become useless as they overarchitect the system into a corner. (Or at a lower level, smoosh so much code into view that it becomes unreadable.)</p><p>In my experience, if they don't have years of experience under their belt to understand the purpose behind coding practices, then all the practices they teach you in college are for naught. A more senior individual still needs to guide the code in the right direction, regardless of education.</p><p>There you go. My anecdotal evidence that disproves your unfounded assertions. Are we all happy now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me make this as clear as I can make it : Neil McAllister is an idiot .
Stop posting his " stories " .
To be sure , self-taught 'cowboy coders ' -- the hallmark of today 's programming generation in America -- are technically proficient , McAllister writes , 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term , and they 're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.And yet no evidence is offered as to why that 's true .
It simply is .
Accept it on face value.Not.As a " self-taught coder " ( remove the " cowboy " , because that has completely different implications ) I am regularly frustrated by the coding practices of my more learned colleagues .
Or more precisely , my colleagues who have more college backing behind their code.Bull ^ H ^ H ^ Hachlor 's Degrees , Masters Degrees , PhDs , it does n't matter .
At the end of the day they still cram code into an editor with little regard for the reasoning behind the coding practices they follow .
In result , those practices become useless as they overarchitect the system into a corner .
( Or at a lower level , smoosh so much code into view that it becomes unreadable .
) In my experience , if they do n't have years of experience under their belt to understand the purpose behind coding practices , then all the practices they teach you in college are for naught .
A more senior individual still needs to guide the code in the right direction , regardless of education.There you go .
My anecdotal evidence that disproves your unfounded assertions .
Are we all happy now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Neil McAllister is an idiot.
Stop posting his "stories".
To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' -- the hallmark of today's programming generation in America -- are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.And yet no evidence is offered as to why that's true.
It simply is.
Accept it on face value.Not.As a "self-taught coder" (remove the "cowboy", because that has completely different implications) I am regularly frustrated by the coding practices of my more learned colleagues.
Or more precisely, my colleagues who have more college backing behind their code.Bull^H^H^Hachlor's Degrees, Masters Degrees, PhDs, it doesn't matter.
At the end of the day they still cram code into an editor with little regard for the reasoning behind the coding practices they follow.
In result, those practices become useless as they overarchitect the system into a corner.
(Or at a lower level, smoosh so much code into view that it becomes unreadable.
)In my experience, if they don't have years of experience under their belt to understand the purpose behind coding practices, then all the practices they teach you in college are for naught.
A more senior individual still needs to guide the code in the right direction, regardless of education.There you go.
My anecdotal evidence that disproves your unfounded assertions.
Are we all happy now?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28533311</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1246393380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hackers are those that take an axe and hack down a tree creating a mess in the process including casualties that offend the beauty of solutions.</p></div><p>No, hackers are the ones who made the axe in the first place. Then they built a tree saw.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hackers are not really programmers as they are to enamored with their hacking skills.</p></div><p>I'm sure Eric Raymond would disagree with you. Hackers were the first real programmers and they built a lot of what you take for granted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackers are those that take an axe and hack down a tree creating a mess in the process including casualties that offend the beauty of solutions.No , hackers are the ones who made the axe in the first place .
Then they built a tree saw.Hackers are not really programmers as they are to enamored with their hacking skills.I 'm sure Eric Raymond would disagree with you .
Hackers were the first real programmers and they built a lot of what you take for granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackers are those that take an axe and hack down a tree creating a mess in the process including casualties that offend the beauty of solutions.No, hackers are the ones who made the axe in the first place.
Then they built a tree saw.Hackers are not really programmers as they are to enamored with their hacking skills.I'm sure Eric Raymond would disagree with you.
Hackers were the first real programmers and they built a lot of what you take for granted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519547</id>
	<title>Making a good living with the "Unemployable"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly this is not my experience and I'm a manager at a fortune 5 company.  In fact, I recruit programmers from the US for other parts of the world as a side line to help fellow managers in other countries.  We do have a mix of various backgrounds but it tends be the "american programmer" mind set that we seek regardless of race, nationality, etc.  As a practical matter, we compete very nicely with HTC and other similar companies, I hope they hold onto this viewpoint, it's a useful advantage for my company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly this is not my experience and I 'm a manager at a fortune 5 company .
In fact , I recruit programmers from the US for other parts of the world as a side line to help fellow managers in other countries .
We do have a mix of various backgrounds but it tends be the " american programmer " mind set that we seek regardless of race , nationality , etc .
As a practical matter , we compete very nicely with HTC and other similar companies , I hope they hold onto this viewpoint , it 's a useful advantage for my company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly this is not my experience and I'm a manager at a fortune 5 company.
In fact, I recruit programmers from the US for other parts of the world as a side line to help fellow managers in other countries.
We do have a mix of various backgrounds but it tends be the "american programmer" mind set that we seek regardless of race, nationality, etc.
As a practical matter, we compete very nicely with HTC and other similar companies, I hope they hold onto this viewpoint, it's a useful advantage for my company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519407</id>
	<title>for u  me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has got to be the lamest 5 minutes I have ever lost in my life... I cannot get the 3-5 minutes back you  know</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has got to be the lamest 5 minutes I have ever lost in my life... I can not get the 3-5 minutes back you know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has got to be the lamest 5 minutes I have ever lost in my life... I cannot get the 3-5 minutes back you  know</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520241</id>
	<title>Learning details is orthogonal to hackerism</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1246271400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that opinions generalizing talent along lines of nationality is usually a load of bullshit fueled by the prejudices of the one doing the opining. This sounds like hubris to me. Perhaps they should consider developer productivity to be as much a function of management and empowerment rather than some innate ability of the people of some nation.</p><p>Wake me up when HTC makes their own handheld OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that opinions generalizing talent along lines of nationality is usually a load of bullshit fueled by the prejudices of the one doing the opining .
This sounds like hubris to me .
Perhaps they should consider developer productivity to be as much a function of management and empowerment rather than some innate ability of the people of some nation.Wake me up when HTC makes their own handheld OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that opinions generalizing talent along lines of nationality is usually a load of bullshit fueled by the prejudices of the one doing the opining.
This sounds like hubris to me.
Perhaps they should consider developer productivity to be as much a function of management and empowerment rather than some innate ability of the people of some nation.Wake me up when HTC makes their own handheld OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522909</id>
	<title>Scientists vs Engineers vs Artists</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1246285740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is more than drones vs hackers. There is a third group and that is artists. Often what the "cowboys" bring to the table is art. The invention of the web over Gopher was genius but then the Netscape boys insisted on adding pictures, then they crammed in Java and then Javascript just popped in there. Was netscape perfect? No. Any standards committee trying to enforce web standards in the mid 90s would have lost their minds or even worse succeeded. Darwin then selects the good cowboys from the bad. Now we have firefox.
But companies also tend to do boring internal programming and generally won't attract good artists.  In my experience the corporate world needs not cowboy programmers but cowboy managers who manage the drones.
If you have drone managers managing drone workers all you get is a system that will meet the contractual obligations of the development company but will really really suck. This is what India is very good at producing; software that meets the contractual miminums. This is why they are so hung up on standards and certification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is more than drones vs hackers .
There is a third group and that is artists .
Often what the " cowboys " bring to the table is art .
The invention of the web over Gopher was genius but then the Netscape boys insisted on adding pictures , then they crammed in Java and then Javascript just popped in there .
Was netscape perfect ?
No. Any standards committee trying to enforce web standards in the mid 90s would have lost their minds or even worse succeeded .
Darwin then selects the good cowboys from the bad .
Now we have firefox .
But companies also tend to do boring internal programming and generally wo n't attract good artists .
In my experience the corporate world needs not cowboy programmers but cowboy managers who manage the drones .
If you have drone managers managing drone workers all you get is a system that will meet the contractual obligations of the development company but will really really suck .
This is what India is very good at producing ; software that meets the contractual miminums .
This is why they are so hung up on standards and certification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is more than drones vs hackers.
There is a third group and that is artists.
Often what the "cowboys" bring to the table is art.
The invention of the web over Gopher was genius but then the Netscape boys insisted on adding pictures, then they crammed in Java and then Javascript just popped in there.
Was netscape perfect?
No. Any standards committee trying to enforce web standards in the mid 90s would have lost their minds or even worse succeeded.
Darwin then selects the good cowboys from the bad.
Now we have firefox.
But companies also tend to do boring internal programming and generally won't attract good artists.
In my experience the corporate world needs not cowboy programmers but cowboy managers who manage the drones.
If you have drone managers managing drone workers all you get is a system that will meet the contractual obligations of the development company but will really really suck.
This is what India is very good at producing; software that meets the contractual miminums.
This is why they are so hung up on standards and certification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520265</id>
	<title>As a non American....</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1246271580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a non American, allow me to say that I think this article is bullshit.  The world needs hackers today every bit as much as it ever did.  Creative thinkers lead to creative solutions.  It seems to me that arguing that all programmers should be drones is the kind of thing you'd expect from some know-nothing PHB.</p><p>Hack on, Yanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a non American , allow me to say that I think this article is bullshit .
The world needs hackers today every bit as much as it ever did .
Creative thinkers lead to creative solutions .
It seems to me that arguing that all programmers should be drones is the kind of thing you 'd expect from some know-nothing PHB.Hack on , Yanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a non American, allow me to say that I think this article is bullshit.
The world needs hackers today every bit as much as it ever did.
Creative thinkers lead to creative solutions.
It seems to me that arguing that all programmers should be drones is the kind of thing you'd expect from some know-nothing PHB.Hack on, Yanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519417</id>
	<title>tigers vs lions</title>
	<author>MeatBag PussRocket</author>
	<datestamp>1246268640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>part of me says that the out-of-the-box, non-conventional thinking that self learners typically have can be a real asset, it shows diligence, creativity and adaptability, nobody penned out the laws and rules for them, they had to find them on their own, it is its own category of brilliance in some respects. generally it doesnt lend itself to production environments though. but perhaps on a more problem solving level this characteristic is more valuable than the beautiful clean code than more schooled programmers learn. a good team of anything (programmers, sysadmins, football players) all have their strengths and weaknesses and they ought to compliment each other and balance out. in short both are needed but assessing the value of each must be done on independent terms, its the same animal but a different species.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>part of me says that the out-of-the-box , non-conventional thinking that self learners typically have can be a real asset , it shows diligence , creativity and adaptability , nobody penned out the laws and rules for them , they had to find them on their own , it is its own category of brilliance in some respects .
generally it doesnt lend itself to production environments though .
but perhaps on a more problem solving level this characteristic is more valuable than the beautiful clean code than more schooled programmers learn .
a good team of anything ( programmers , sysadmins , football players ) all have their strengths and weaknesses and they ought to compliment each other and balance out .
in short both are needed but assessing the value of each must be done on independent terms , its the same animal but a different species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>part of me says that the out-of-the-box, non-conventional thinking that self learners typically have can be a real asset, it shows diligence, creativity and adaptability, nobody penned out the laws and rules for them, they had to find them on their own, it is its own category of brilliance in some respects.
generally it doesnt lend itself to production environments though.
but perhaps on a more problem solving level this characteristic is more valuable than the beautiful clean code than more schooled programmers learn.
a good team of anything (programmers, sysadmins, football players) all have their strengths and weaknesses and they ought to compliment each other and balance out.
in short both are needed but assessing the value of each must be done on independent terms, its the same animal but a different species.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1246269840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in college's defense - college doesn't even <i>try</i> to teach you the things that you need to learn by experience (although four years of college under a computer science major does equate to probably one or two years of real-world experience), but instead teach you all the things that you might never come across in "real life" but that are actually useful (such as NP completeness, Turing's halting problem, push-down automata, queuing theory, red-black trees, binary searches, "big O" notation, etc. - plus, you know, calculus, linear algebra, statistics and maybe even a smattering of history, literature, sociology, hard science, and so on)  The things you need to learn by experience can only be learned by experience - I've never heard anybody suggest that a college education is a substitute for experience.  I'm not familiar with any college curriculum that covers things like source control, makefiles, modularization, making sense of a program that was written ten years ago, reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for, effective use of a debugger etc. etc. - the idea is that you're supposed to go to college and <i>then</i> get experience and then <i>finally</i> become a well-rounded programmer.</p><p>If you know how to code, you're a self-taught coder... college is too busy teaching all the other stuff to waste it's time teaching you how to actually code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in college 's defense - college does n't even try to teach you the things that you need to learn by experience ( although four years of college under a computer science major does equate to probably one or two years of real-world experience ) , but instead teach you all the things that you might never come across in " real life " but that are actually useful ( such as NP completeness , Turing 's halting problem , push-down automata , queuing theory , red-black trees , binary searches , " big O " notation , etc .
- plus , you know , calculus , linear algebra , statistics and maybe even a smattering of history , literature , sociology , hard science , and so on ) The things you need to learn by experience can only be learned by experience - I 've never heard anybody suggest that a college education is a substitute for experience .
I 'm not familiar with any college curriculum that covers things like source control , makefiles , modularization , making sense of a program that was written ten years ago , reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for , effective use of a debugger etc .
etc. - the idea is that you 're supposed to go to college and then get experience and then finally become a well-rounded programmer.If you know how to code , you 're a self-taught coder... college is too busy teaching all the other stuff to waste it 's time teaching you how to actually code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in college's defense - college doesn't even try to teach you the things that you need to learn by experience (although four years of college under a computer science major does equate to probably one or two years of real-world experience), but instead teach you all the things that you might never come across in "real life" but that are actually useful (such as NP completeness, Turing's halting problem, push-down automata, queuing theory, red-black trees, binary searches, "big O" notation, etc.
- plus, you know, calculus, linear algebra, statistics and maybe even a smattering of history, literature, sociology, hard science, and so on)  The things you need to learn by experience can only be learned by experience - I've never heard anybody suggest that a college education is a substitute for experience.
I'm not familiar with any college curriculum that covers things like source control, makefiles, modularization, making sense of a program that was written ten years ago, reverse-engineering code that you no longer have source for, effective use of a debugger etc.
etc. - the idea is that you're supposed to go to college and then get experience and then finally become a well-rounded programmer.If you know how to code, you're a self-taught coder... college is too busy teaching all the other stuff to waste it's time teaching you how to actually code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521279</id>
	<title>Let's do the Time Warp again!</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1246276620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pink is for hackers, blue is for suits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink is for hackers , blue is for suits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink is for hackers, blue is for suits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521481</id>
	<title>Normal Technology Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246277640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that "automobile hackers" were regarded the same way.  And "rocketry hackers".</p><p>Programming will go through the same phases.  Hacker -&gt; engineering.  At the hacking stage, it's more a craft.  Craftsmen will use very different methods to achieve varied (but good) results.  Engineers will use almost exactly the same methods to achieve almost exactly the same results.  The shift has already started but I'd say will take another generation to complete.</p><p>I'd estimate that the people graduating in Computer Science now will be the teachers of the first generation of real Software Engineers.  The current comp. sci. graduates will be making the first crude engineering tools that the eventual engineers will use (and quickly replace, with better engineered versions).</p><p>Once it becomes actual engineering, some old hackers will make the shift to engineering and some will go do something else.  A few will continue with it as a hobby, being the "grand old craftsman" who dabble in "hand made art".  Some may have notoriety and will mentor the next generation, so the new generation can fold the few good old heuristics into the engineering lore.</p><p>And the next generation of hackers (those with a personality that drives them to tinker) hack on something else - there's little satisfaction to hacking stuff that's being engineered.  Diminished returns.  It wouldn't even occur to them to hack software, there'd be no point (for a tinkerer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that " automobile hackers " were regarded the same way .
And " rocketry hackers " .Programming will go through the same phases .
Hacker - &gt; engineering .
At the hacking stage , it 's more a craft .
Craftsmen will use very different methods to achieve varied ( but good ) results .
Engineers will use almost exactly the same methods to achieve almost exactly the same results .
The shift has already started but I 'd say will take another generation to complete.I 'd estimate that the people graduating in Computer Science now will be the teachers of the first generation of real Software Engineers .
The current comp .
sci. graduates will be making the first crude engineering tools that the eventual engineers will use ( and quickly replace , with better engineered versions ) .Once it becomes actual engineering , some old hackers will make the shift to engineering and some will go do something else .
A few will continue with it as a hobby , being the " grand old craftsman " who dabble in " hand made art " .
Some may have notoriety and will mentor the next generation , so the new generation can fold the few good old heuristics into the engineering lore.And the next generation of hackers ( those with a personality that drives them to tinker ) hack on something else - there 's little satisfaction to hacking stuff that 's being engineered .
Diminished returns .
It would n't even occur to them to hack software , there 'd be no point ( for a tinkerer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that "automobile hackers" were regarded the same way.
And "rocketry hackers".Programming will go through the same phases.
Hacker -&gt; engineering.
At the hacking stage, it's more a craft.
Craftsmen will use very different methods to achieve varied (but good) results.
Engineers will use almost exactly the same methods to achieve almost exactly the same results.
The shift has already started but I'd say will take another generation to complete.I'd estimate that the people graduating in Computer Science now will be the teachers of the first generation of real Software Engineers.
The current comp.
sci. graduates will be making the first crude engineering tools that the eventual engineers will use (and quickly replace, with better engineered versions).Once it becomes actual engineering, some old hackers will make the shift to engineering and some will go do something else.
A few will continue with it as a hobby, being the "grand old craftsman" who dabble in "hand made art".
Some may have notoriety and will mentor the next generation, so the new generation can fold the few good old heuristics into the engineering lore.And the next generation of hackers (those with a personality that drives them to tinker) hack on something else - there's little satisfaction to hacking stuff that's being engineered.
Diminished returns.
It wouldn't even occur to them to hack software, there'd be no point (for a tinkerer).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521941</id>
	<title>Re:You are not a cowboy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cowboys do not do code reviews. Cowboys do not question their own code. Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations. Cowboys don't test. Cowboys treat users like idiots. Cowboys don't document.</p></div><p>Oh... so cowboys are the guys who write most open source software?</p><p>That explains a lot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cowboys do not do code reviews .
Cowboys do not question their own code .
Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations .
Cowboys do n't test .
Cowboys treat users like idiots .
Cowboys do n't document.Oh... so cowboys are the guys who write most open source software ? That explains a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cowboys do not do code reviews.
Cowboys do not question their own code.
Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations.
Cowboys don't test.
Cowboys treat users like idiots.
Cowboys don't document.Oh... so cowboys are the guys who write most open source software?That explains a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520375</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would certainly agree that all programmers should learn how to do things without a GUI before they start using one - for the same reason you have to learn to do calculus by hand even though you're going to use a calculator to do it if you ever actually need to use it.  But once you've learned... well you can still do things by hand when it'll actually help something, but 99\% of the time that it's just a pointless waste of time to manually configure your files, compile, and run instead of clicking on the little green arrow in eclipse.<br>
<br>
And since I'm still in school... I'm going to go ahead and say we in fact do teach real programming.  And that includes how to use the tools that you'll use to do the mindless background stuff for you in real life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would certainly agree that all programmers should learn how to do things without a GUI before they start using one - for the same reason you have to learn to do calculus by hand even though you 're going to use a calculator to do it if you ever actually need to use it .
But once you 've learned... well you can still do things by hand when it 'll actually help something , but 99 \ % of the time that it 's just a pointless waste of time to manually configure your files , compile , and run instead of clicking on the little green arrow in eclipse .
And since I 'm still in school... I 'm going to go ahead and say we in fact do teach real programming .
And that includes how to use the tools that you 'll use to do the mindless background stuff for you in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would certainly agree that all programmers should learn how to do things without a GUI before they start using one - for the same reason you have to learn to do calculus by hand even though you're going to use a calculator to do it if you ever actually need to use it.
But once you've learned... well you can still do things by hand when it'll actually help something, but 99\% of the time that it's just a pointless waste of time to manually configure your files, compile, and run instead of clicking on the little green arrow in eclipse.
And since I'm still in school... I'm going to go ahead and say we in fact do teach real programming.
And that includes how to use the tools that you'll use to do the mindless background stuff for you in real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519759</id>
	<title>software engineering</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1246269720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory."</p><p>Which is why many universities offer software engineering degrees as a more practical alternative to computer science degrees.  Software engineering degrees were offered at many of the schools I was looking at back when I started my undergrad in 2002.  I was actually annoyed at how many software engineering classes my university crammed into my computer science curriculum since I had no intention of becoming a cube monkey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory .
" Which is why many universities offer software engineering degrees as a more practical alternative to computer science degrees .
Software engineering degrees were offered at many of the schools I was looking at back when I started my undergrad in 2002 .
I was actually annoyed at how many software engineering classes my university crammed into my computer science curriculum since I had no intention of becoming a cube monkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.
"Which is why many universities offer software engineering degrees as a more practical alternative to computer science degrees.
Software engineering degrees were offered at many of the schools I was looking at back when I started my undergrad in 2002.
I was actually annoyed at how many software engineering classes my university crammed into my computer science curriculum since I had no intention of becoming a cube monkey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520483</id>
	<title>What is the "hacker ethic" any more?</title>
	<author>AxelTorvalds</author>
	<datestamp>1246272480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhere in the last 2 decades "coding" became the singular aspect of "hacking."   A lot of other things have happened in that time,  a huge number of people have decided or "interpreted" or who knows what that "Functional programming" is programing with procedures rather than objects.   "Object Oriented Programming" no longer has nearly as much to do with modeling so much as it does calling modules "objects."   A webpage that does database I/O now constitutes an enterprise application...   I suspect it's sort of the backlash of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com boom,  at first we'd hire anyone who could fill a seat as a "web developer"  then the 9/11 recession happened and we culled out most of the dead wood but the die hards that picked up some skills kind of stuck around,  now a days they are sort of senior guys when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
<p>
Coding is nice and all, but good communication, good engineering,  and good design (not graphics design) are parts of the old skool "hacker ethic."   There was a time when you touched a program you tried to leave it better than you found it and anticipate what the next guy will need or want.   That's becoming a rarity and some modern paradigms like Agile seem to ignore it completely, you're wasting energy and time if you "over engineer" anything or try to build something before you need to.
</p><p>
Where or if you went to school doesn't matter,  the tools you choose to use don't matter,  even if you're a low-level assembly and machine code guy or as javascript in the browser kind of guy doesn't matter that much, and it certainly doesn't matter if you can code faster than anyone else or if it takes you twice as long as the next guy (there is probably another problem when that really matters much... nobody likes to admit it so much as revel in the coding marathon glory but when all you do is code, you simply don't have time to engineer or solve problems better..)  Good hackers, write programs that are easy to understand and maintain and they try to anticipate what the next guy might need,  bad hackers/cowboys/whatever don't.   Now I've run a few outsourcing efforts and I'd say they've got shit for hackers in India and China,  seems we've got shit for a hackers in a lot of places in America too though.   Good hackers tend to finish the job, not "get it working."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere in the last 2 decades " coding " became the singular aspect of " hacking .
" A lot of other things have happened in that time , a huge number of people have decided or " interpreted " or who knows what that " Functional programming " is programing with procedures rather than objects .
" Object Oriented Programming " no longer has nearly as much to do with modeling so much as it does calling modules " objects .
" A webpage that does database I/O now constitutes an enterprise application... I suspect it 's sort of the backlash of the .com boom , at first we 'd hire anyone who could fill a seat as a " web developer " then the 9/11 recession happened and we culled out most of the dead wood but the die hards that picked up some skills kind of stuck around , now a days they are sort of senior guys when in reality nothing could be further from the truth .
Coding is nice and all , but good communication , good engineering , and good design ( not graphics design ) are parts of the old skool " hacker ethic .
" There was a time when you touched a program you tried to leave it better than you found it and anticipate what the next guy will need or want .
That 's becoming a rarity and some modern paradigms like Agile seem to ignore it completely , you 're wasting energy and time if you " over engineer " anything or try to build something before you need to .
Where or if you went to school does n't matter , the tools you choose to use do n't matter , even if you 're a low-level assembly and machine code guy or as javascript in the browser kind of guy does n't matter that much , and it certainly does n't matter if you can code faster than anyone else or if it takes you twice as long as the next guy ( there is probably another problem when that really matters much... nobody likes to admit it so much as revel in the coding marathon glory but when all you do is code , you simply do n't have time to engineer or solve problems better.. ) Good hackers , write programs that are easy to understand and maintain and they try to anticipate what the next guy might need , bad hackers/cowboys/whatever do n't .
Now I 've run a few outsourcing efforts and I 'd say they 've got shit for hackers in India and China , seems we 've got shit for a hackers in a lot of places in America too though .
Good hackers tend to finish the job , not " get it working .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere in the last 2 decades "coding" became the singular aspect of "hacking.
"   A lot of other things have happened in that time,  a huge number of people have decided or "interpreted" or who knows what that "Functional programming" is programing with procedures rather than objects.
"Object Oriented Programming" no longer has nearly as much to do with modeling so much as it does calling modules "objects.
"   A webpage that does database I/O now constitutes an enterprise application...   I suspect it's sort of the backlash of the .com boom,  at first we'd hire anyone who could fill a seat as a "web developer"  then the 9/11 recession happened and we culled out most of the dead wood but the die hards that picked up some skills kind of stuck around,  now a days they are sort of senior guys when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
Coding is nice and all, but good communication, good engineering,  and good design (not graphics design) are parts of the old skool "hacker ethic.
"   There was a time when you touched a program you tried to leave it better than you found it and anticipate what the next guy will need or want.
That's becoming a rarity and some modern paradigms like Agile seem to ignore it completely, you're wasting energy and time if you "over engineer" anything or try to build something before you need to.
Where or if you went to school doesn't matter,  the tools you choose to use don't matter,  even if you're a low-level assembly and machine code guy or as javascript in the browser kind of guy doesn't matter that much, and it certainly doesn't matter if you can code faster than anyone else or if it takes you twice as long as the next guy (there is probably another problem when that really matters much... nobody likes to admit it so much as revel in the coding marathon glory but when all you do is code, you simply don't have time to engineer or solve problems better..)  Good hackers, write programs that are easy to understand and maintain and they try to anticipate what the next guy might need,  bad hackers/cowboys/whatever don't.
Now I've run a few outsourcing efforts and I'd say they've got shit for hackers in India and China,  seems we've got shit for a hackers in a lot of places in America too though.
Good hackers tend to finish the job, not "get it working.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528561</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>agentultra</author>
	<datestamp>1246377600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE (to work on appropriate scale projects) is like hunting with a spear, but you're not nearly as cool.</p></div><p>It's really not as primitive as you make it out to be.</p><p>I've worked on projects big and small, but no matter the size emacs fits the bill for me. I actually find that it's a rather elegant tool.</p><p>Anyway, I'm long past my days of flaming people over IDEs and languages. I think you had the right idea in the beginning, but you lost me with your closing line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE ( to work on appropriate scale projects ) is like hunting with a spear , but you 're not nearly as cool.It 's really not as primitive as you make it out to be.I 've worked on projects big and small , but no matter the size emacs fits the bill for me .
I actually find that it 's a rather elegant tool.Anyway , I 'm long past my days of flaming people over IDEs and languages .
I think you had the right idea in the beginning , but you lost me with your closing line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using a text editor instead of a full IDE (to work on appropriate scale projects) is like hunting with a spear, but you're not nearly as cool.It's really not as primitive as you make it out to be.I've worked on projects big and small, but no matter the size emacs fits the bill for me.
I actually find that it's a rather elegant tool.Anyway, I'm long past my days of flaming people over IDEs and languages.
I think you had the right idea in the beginning, but you lost me with your closing line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526809</id>
	<title>Re:You are not a cowboy.</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1246369740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cowboys do not do code reviews. Cowboys do not question their own code. Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations. Cowboys don't test. Cowboys treat users like idiots. Cowboys don't document.</p></div><p>Oh my god, I'm a cowboy!</p><p>I didn't know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cowboys do not do code reviews .
Cowboys do not question their own code .
Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations .
Cowboys do n't test .
Cowboys treat users like idiots .
Cowboys do n't document.Oh my god , I 'm a cowboy ! I did n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cowboys do not do code reviews.
Cowboys do not question their own code.
Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations.
Cowboys don't test.
Cowboys treat users like idiots.
Cowboys don't document.Oh my god, I'm a cowboy!I didn't know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28529101</id>
	<title>My case against self-taught hackers</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1246379700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had the dis-pleasure of having to take over several projects that were started by hackers. Most of the these hackers were very smart, and well educated, but not in software development.</p><p>In every case the code was more awful than anything I could imagine in my worse nightmare. Every rule of proper design was broken wholesale. And the hackers did not even know what they didn't know. As far as the hackers were concerned, their was nothing wrong with their code.</p><p>The reasons for this are fairly obvious. Design and structure do not come naturally. It is more natural to just sit down and start hacking away. And if something works, and you can read your own code, and understand your own reasoning, then what's the problem?</p><p>Self taught hackers practically never try to learn about structured methodology, because they don't even know what it is, and since they only work with their own code: they see no reason for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had the dis-pleasure of having to take over several projects that were started by hackers .
Most of the these hackers were very smart , and well educated , but not in software development.In every case the code was more awful than anything I could imagine in my worse nightmare .
Every rule of proper design was broken wholesale .
And the hackers did not even know what they did n't know .
As far as the hackers were concerned , their was nothing wrong with their code.The reasons for this are fairly obvious .
Design and structure do not come naturally .
It is more natural to just sit down and start hacking away .
And if something works , and you can read your own code , and understand your own reasoning , then what 's the problem ? Self taught hackers practically never try to learn about structured methodology , because they do n't even know what it is , and since they only work with their own code : they see no reason for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had the dis-pleasure of having to take over several projects that were started by hackers.
Most of the these hackers were very smart, and well educated, but not in software development.In every case the code was more awful than anything I could imagine in my worse nightmare.
Every rule of proper design was broken wholesale.
And the hackers did not even know what they didn't know.
As far as the hackers were concerned, their was nothing wrong with their code.The reasons for this are fairly obvious.
Design and structure do not come naturally.
It is more natural to just sit down and start hacking away.
And if something works, and you can read your own code, and understand your own reasoning, then what's the problem?Self taught hackers practically never try to learn about structured methodology, because they don't even know what it is, and since they only work with their own code: they see no reason for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609</id>
	<title>opposite of observed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My observation is that good American programmers can produce software that is -vastly- more maintainable, efficient, understandable. Easier to modify or extend.</p><p>Mostly this is because they're combining a lifelong passion for programming with some education (formal or not) about software design practices. Foreign programmers on work visas are primarily concerned with making a better life for their family, altering their condition from one of near-poverty to significant wealth. They rarely have a passion for the work, and their only requirement is that they can accomplish enough to get and keep a job, not to excel.</p><p>Foreign programmers who could not get a work visa to come to the US, but work for US businesses remotely for a reduced rate due to the discrepancy in cost of living are usually of the same mindset. But usually they weren't good enough to get a job in the US! More recently, their standard of living can be equal or greater by staying in their country.</p><p>I simply don't know where the Indian or Chinese workers are that have significant skill or a real passion for programming, or computers in general. I have never met ONE in my life, despite working with countless dozens of foreign works on work visas. I have met some from other countries, but usually it is not places that are so poor that huge numbers of people are coming to the US to get a job that changes their standard of living. The exception is the former Soviet states. People from the former Soviet states often bring a passion for computing with them. Probably because they weren't poor in the same sense as someone of comparable income in India.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My observation is that good American programmers can produce software that is -vastly- more maintainable , efficient , understandable .
Easier to modify or extend.Mostly this is because they 're combining a lifelong passion for programming with some education ( formal or not ) about software design practices .
Foreign programmers on work visas are primarily concerned with making a better life for their family , altering their condition from one of near-poverty to significant wealth .
They rarely have a passion for the work , and their only requirement is that they can accomplish enough to get and keep a job , not to excel.Foreign programmers who could not get a work visa to come to the US , but work for US businesses remotely for a reduced rate due to the discrepancy in cost of living are usually of the same mindset .
But usually they were n't good enough to get a job in the US !
More recently , their standard of living can be equal or greater by staying in their country.I simply do n't know where the Indian or Chinese workers are that have significant skill or a real passion for programming , or computers in general .
I have never met ONE in my life , despite working with countless dozens of foreign works on work visas .
I have met some from other countries , but usually it is not places that are so poor that huge numbers of people are coming to the US to get a job that changes their standard of living .
The exception is the former Soviet states .
People from the former Soviet states often bring a passion for computing with them .
Probably because they were n't poor in the same sense as someone of comparable income in India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My observation is that good American programmers can produce software that is -vastly- more maintainable, efficient, understandable.
Easier to modify or extend.Mostly this is because they're combining a lifelong passion for programming with some education (formal or not) about software design practices.
Foreign programmers on work visas are primarily concerned with making a better life for their family, altering their condition from one of near-poverty to significant wealth.
They rarely have a passion for the work, and their only requirement is that they can accomplish enough to get and keep a job, not to excel.Foreign programmers who could not get a work visa to come to the US, but work for US businesses remotely for a reduced rate due to the discrepancy in cost of living are usually of the same mindset.
But usually they weren't good enough to get a job in the US!
More recently, their standard of living can be equal or greater by staying in their country.I simply don't know where the Indian or Chinese workers are that have significant skill or a real passion for programming, or computers in general.
I have never met ONE in my life, despite working with countless dozens of foreign works on work visas.
I have met some from other countries, but usually it is not places that are so poor that huge numbers of people are coming to the US to get a job that changes their standard of living.
The exception is the former Soviet states.
People from the former Soviet states often bring a passion for computing with them.
Probably because they weren't poor in the same sense as someone of comparable income in India.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522779</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246284540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In point of fact mechanical engineers graduate college ready to take the E.I.T. (in the USA all 'real' engineers can take the test)
</p><p>
That's the Engineer In Training (E.I.T.) test.
</p><p>
Only after a number of years working under the supervision of a professional engineer (P.E.) can you take the PE test.
</p><p>
I believe being a structural engineer is a further certification beyond PE. I could be remembering incorrectly.
</p><p>
(If you missed the point of this: it is horribly horribly stupid for Lord Ender to think all things can be taught in school.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In point of fact mechanical engineers graduate college ready to take the E.I.T .
( in the USA all 'real ' engineers can take the test ) That 's the Engineer In Training ( E.I.T .
) test .
Only after a number of years working under the supervision of a professional engineer ( P.E .
) can you take the PE test .
I believe being a structural engineer is a further certification beyond PE .
I could be remembering incorrectly .
( If you missed the point of this : it is horribly horribly stupid for Lord Ender to think all things can be taught in school .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In point of fact mechanical engineers graduate college ready to take the E.I.T.
(in the USA all 'real' engineers can take the test)

That's the Engineer In Training (E.I.T.
) test.
Only after a number of years working under the supervision of a professional engineer (P.E.
) can you take the PE test.
I believe being a structural engineer is a further certification beyond PE.
I could be remembering incorrectly.
(If you missed the point of this: it is horribly horribly stupid for Lord Ender to think all things can be taught in school.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519831</id>
	<title>To do list</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1246269960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I MUST post this story on every developer forum on the web.  Start with:</p><p>Ubuntu forums<br>Suse forums<br>Debian forums<br>Redhat forums<br>Mozilla forums</p><p>Ohhhh, I better get busy, I can fill in the list as I go.........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I MUST post this story on every developer forum on the web .
Start with : Ubuntu forumsSuse forumsDebian forumsRedhat forumsMozilla forumsOhhhh , I better get busy , I can fill in the list as I go........ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I MUST post this story on every developer forum on the web.
Start with:Ubuntu forumsSuse forumsDebian forumsRedhat forumsMozilla forumsOhhhh, I better get busy, I can fill in the list as I go.........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521697</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1246278720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think this guy is really advocating "learned coders", he's advocating coding monkeys:  coders that will meekly follow whatever wacky development model he subscribes to this week without question.  What he hates is independent thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this guy is really advocating " learned coders " , he 's advocating coding monkeys : coders that will meekly follow whatever wacky development model he subscribes to this week without question .
What he hates is independent thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this guy is really advocating "learned coders", he's advocating coding monkeys:  coders that will meekly follow whatever wacky development model he subscribes to this week without question.
What he hates is independent thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519581</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246269180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to admit, that I'm skeptical that coders now are any more cowboyish than they used to be. I mean I've read stories about how Bill Gates and Paul Allen used to handle Micro Soft's products early on before they changed the name and locale. Somebody will have to explain to me how today's coders can be any worse than they were.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to admit , that I 'm skeptical that coders now are any more cowboyish than they used to be .
I mean I 've read stories about how Bill Gates and Paul Allen used to handle Micro Soft 's products early on before they changed the name and locale .
Somebody will have to explain to me how today 's coders can be any worse than they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to admit, that I'm skeptical that coders now are any more cowboyish than they used to be.
I mean I've read stories about how Bill Gates and Paul Allen used to handle Micro Soft's products early on before they changed the name and locale.
Somebody will have to explain to me how today's coders can be any worse than they were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519441</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does the hacker ethic have to do maintainability? The hacker ethic is about testing boundaries, making things because you can, breaking things because you can, and bring out the full potential of technology. It has nothing to do with coding styles and what effect they may or may not have on maintainability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does the hacker ethic have to do maintainability ?
The hacker ethic is about testing boundaries , making things because you can , breaking things because you can , and bring out the full potential of technology .
It has nothing to do with coding styles and what effect they may or may not have on maintainability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does the hacker ethic have to do maintainability?
The hacker ethic is about testing boundaries, making things because you can, breaking things because you can, and bring out the full potential of technology.
It has nothing to do with coding styles and what effect they may or may not have on maintainability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519685</id>
	<title>But it's green</title>
	<author>travdaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1246269480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In other words, are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?</i> <br> <br>
I don't know, but us IT guys save A TON of money riding a skateboard everywhere, and it's environmentally friendly!  Who's laughing now?
<br> <br>
-The Plague</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today 's real-life business environment ?
I do n't know , but us IT guys save A TON of money riding a skateboard everywhere , and it 's environmentally friendly !
Who 's laughing now ?
-The Plague</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?
I don't know, but us IT guys save A TON of money riding a skateboard everywhere, and it's environmentally friendly!
Who's laughing now?
-The Plague</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528235</id>
	<title>Re:Not just developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The technology industry has grown up. We aren't in the days of "Just make it work" anymore. We're in the days of refining how things work. Best practices have been established. Frameworks for doing things have been established. Companies are just looking for people who can "Make application X do A and B." reliably.</p></div></blockquote><p>Completely. And the most important word in that is <strong>reliably</strong>. Which means: deliver to promise every time. I don't mind if it takes a bit longer than it would otherwise, or costs a bit more, as long as it's predictable; I can plan around it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The technology industry has grown up .
We are n't in the days of " Just make it work " anymore .
We 're in the days of refining how things work .
Best practices have been established .
Frameworks for doing things have been established .
Companies are just looking for people who can " Make application X do A and B .
" reliably.Completely .
And the most important word in that is reliably .
Which means : deliver to promise every time .
I do n't mind if it takes a bit longer than it would otherwise , or costs a bit more , as long as it 's predictable ; I can plan around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technology industry has grown up.
We aren't in the days of "Just make it work" anymore.
We're in the days of refining how things work.
Best practices have been established.
Frameworks for doing things have been established.
Companies are just looking for people who can "Make application X do A and B.
" reliably.Completely.
And the most important word in that is reliably.
Which means: deliver to promise every time.
I don't mind if it takes a bit longer than it would otherwise, or costs a bit more, as long as it's predictable; I can plan around it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521899</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246279800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utter nonsense.</p><p>Yeah, glue is used to hold wood together till you nail it together with nails to hold it in place permanently.</p><p>PERL might be temporary glue but it's an icky solution that fails any design requirements for reliability, stability, or understandability.</p><p>Sure PERL is used by hackers, but so what? That doesn't mean it SHOULD be used for solutions. In fact PERL itself is a horrific hack. It takes a team of hackers with chainsaws to slice a path of understanding through it's unnecessary complex syntax where the rule seems to be if it's not in the library add it with NEW syntax to make the language more complex. See this excellent article on PERL's syntax complexity here: <a href="http://smalltalk.org/articles/article\_20040914\_a1.html" title="smalltalk.org" rel="nofollow">Simplicity and Power Comes from the Smalltalk Syntax</a> [smalltalk.org]. It requires a complex "PERL Periodic Table of the Operators" to comprehend the PERL syntax.</p><p>When compared to a powerful language like Smalltalk that is designed rather than hacked it's clear that the extra brain power used to comprehend the bizarre overly complex syntax of PERL is just a waste of precious life energy and time.</p><p>It's clear that PERL is a language with an extremely heavy syntax burden that doesn't give it any advantages unless your trying to win a cryptic programming contest. But then that is what hackers are trying to do in their heads when they work. I know, I've had the misfortune of working with too many PERL programmers. Shivers.</p><p>PERL is for hackers just like GPL is for nested acronym freaks who have nothing better to do than solve so duku puzzles when they should be getting real work done on projects.</p><p>While no programming language is perfect it makes no sense to burden the human mind with the nonsensical and unnecessary burden of the extra syntax layers for PERL. Heck even a EBNF is very unlikely for the darn thing.</p><p>So ok go ahead mr hacker and use PERL as your glue but watch out as it's addictive when you sniff it for too long. Drug addicts don't make good designers mr perl hacker.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter nonsense.Yeah , glue is used to hold wood together till you nail it together with nails to hold it in place permanently.PERL might be temporary glue but it 's an icky solution that fails any design requirements for reliability , stability , or understandability.Sure PERL is used by hackers , but so what ?
That does n't mean it SHOULD be used for solutions .
In fact PERL itself is a horrific hack .
It takes a team of hackers with chainsaws to slice a path of understanding through it 's unnecessary complex syntax where the rule seems to be if it 's not in the library add it with NEW syntax to make the language more complex .
See this excellent article on PERL 's syntax complexity here : Simplicity and Power Comes from the Smalltalk Syntax [ smalltalk.org ] .
It requires a complex " PERL Periodic Table of the Operators " to comprehend the PERL syntax.When compared to a powerful language like Smalltalk that is designed rather than hacked it 's clear that the extra brain power used to comprehend the bizarre overly complex syntax of PERL is just a waste of precious life energy and time.It 's clear that PERL is a language with an extremely heavy syntax burden that does n't give it any advantages unless your trying to win a cryptic programming contest .
But then that is what hackers are trying to do in their heads when they work .
I know , I 've had the misfortune of working with too many PERL programmers .
Shivers.PERL is for hackers just like GPL is for nested acronym freaks who have nothing better to do than solve so duku puzzles when they should be getting real work done on projects.While no programming language is perfect it makes no sense to burden the human mind with the nonsensical and unnecessary burden of the extra syntax layers for PERL .
Heck even a EBNF is very unlikely for the darn thing.So ok go ahead mr hacker and use PERL as your glue but watch out as it 's addictive when you sniff it for too long .
Drug addicts do n't make good designers mr perl hacker .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter nonsense.Yeah, glue is used to hold wood together till you nail it together with nails to hold it in place permanently.PERL might be temporary glue but it's an icky solution that fails any design requirements for reliability, stability, or understandability.Sure PERL is used by hackers, but so what?
That doesn't mean it SHOULD be used for solutions.
In fact PERL itself is a horrific hack.
It takes a team of hackers with chainsaws to slice a path of understanding through it's unnecessary complex syntax where the rule seems to be if it's not in the library add it with NEW syntax to make the language more complex.
See this excellent article on PERL's syntax complexity here: Simplicity and Power Comes from the Smalltalk Syntax [smalltalk.org].
It requires a complex "PERL Periodic Table of the Operators" to comprehend the PERL syntax.When compared to a powerful language like Smalltalk that is designed rather than hacked it's clear that the extra brain power used to comprehend the bizarre overly complex syntax of PERL is just a waste of precious life energy and time.It's clear that PERL is a language with an extremely heavy syntax burden that doesn't give it any advantages unless your trying to win a cryptic programming contest.
But then that is what hackers are trying to do in their heads when they work.
I know, I've had the misfortune of working with too many PERL programmers.
Shivers.PERL is for hackers just like GPL is for nested acronym freaks who have nothing better to do than solve so duku puzzles when they should be getting real work done on projects.While no programming language is perfect it makes no sense to burden the human mind with the nonsensical and unnecessary burden of the extra syntax layers for PERL.
Heck even a EBNF is very unlikely for the darn thing.So ok go ahead mr hacker and use PERL as your glue but watch out as it's addictive when you sniff it for too long.
Drug addicts don't make good designers mr perl hacker.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520189</id>
	<title>Cowboy Up.</title>
	<author>SoupIsGood Food</author>
	<datestamp>1246271220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Indian companies come up with globally game-changing software on the same timetable as a Silicon Valley start-up like Facebook or Google, we'll talk. When a Chinese company has the long-term track record of quality and maturity that IBM and Oracle exhibit, we'll talk.</p><p>Until then, the cowboy coder makes better software in less time at the beginning of their career, and matures into a more competent team player as the years roll by and experience piles up. This isn't a weakness, this is why we have an IT industry at all. H1B coders are generally useless until they learn to Cowboy Up... and once they do, there's not really much difference between them and the locals. (I wish more of them would apply for permanent residence and bring their families over. I like immigrants who want a better life, I don't like scabs.)</p><p>Engineers at Honda start out their career working for the racing division, designing high-performance parts. Engineers at the end of their careers are assigned to subcompacts and mini-vans. This is because Honda needs fresh insights and youthful eagerness and excitement, and if the engineer flubs it, the only ones who know are the racing team. More importantly, Honda needs experienced hands who know their craft inside-out and upside-down to engineer the components millions of their customers will be using everyday, and their senior engineers generally appreciate the stability and predictability of a long-term ongoing project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Indian companies come up with globally game-changing software on the same timetable as a Silicon Valley start-up like Facebook or Google , we 'll talk .
When a Chinese company has the long-term track record of quality and maturity that IBM and Oracle exhibit , we 'll talk.Until then , the cowboy coder makes better software in less time at the beginning of their career , and matures into a more competent team player as the years roll by and experience piles up .
This is n't a weakness , this is why we have an IT industry at all .
H1B coders are generally useless until they learn to Cowboy Up... and once they do , there 's not really much difference between them and the locals .
( I wish more of them would apply for permanent residence and bring their families over .
I like immigrants who want a better life , I do n't like scabs .
) Engineers at Honda start out their career working for the racing division , designing high-performance parts .
Engineers at the end of their careers are assigned to subcompacts and mini-vans .
This is because Honda needs fresh insights and youthful eagerness and excitement , and if the engineer flubs it , the only ones who know are the racing team .
More importantly , Honda needs experienced hands who know their craft inside-out and upside-down to engineer the components millions of their customers will be using everyday , and their senior engineers generally appreciate the stability and predictability of a long-term ongoing project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Indian companies come up with globally game-changing software on the same timetable as a Silicon Valley start-up like Facebook or Google, we'll talk.
When a Chinese company has the long-term track record of quality and maturity that IBM and Oracle exhibit, we'll talk.Until then, the cowboy coder makes better software in less time at the beginning of their career, and matures into a more competent team player as the years roll by and experience piles up.
This isn't a weakness, this is why we have an IT industry at all.
H1B coders are generally useless until they learn to Cowboy Up... and once they do, there's not really much difference between them and the locals.
(I wish more of them would apply for permanent residence and bring their families over.
I like immigrants who want a better life, I don't like scabs.
)Engineers at Honda start out their career working for the racing division, designing high-performance parts.
Engineers at the end of their careers are assigned to subcompacts and mini-vans.
This is because Honda needs fresh insights and youthful eagerness and excitement, and if the engineer flubs it, the only ones who know are the racing team.
More importantly, Honda needs experienced hands who know their craft inside-out and upside-down to engineer the components millions of their customers will be using everyday, and their senior engineers generally appreciate the stability and predictability of a long-term ongoing project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465</id>
	<title>Says who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm a self-taught cowboy programmer.  Never took a single CS course.</p><p>I spent ten years on the ISO C committee.  My coworkers like my code reviews because I'm thorough and careful.  While my code isn't as good as I'd like it to be, the big hunk of my code that we put into our last product release has one known outstanding bug, and it's considered "cosmetic" -- it never impacts the actual output.  (And that's for five thousand lines of code I produced in three weeks...)</p><p>I don't buy it.  I am a big fan of the "hacker ethic" -- and I see maintainability and code quality as *central* to it.  Sloppy work is habit forming.  The reason I can type ten-line shell scripts in at the prompt and have them work is that I have worked really hard to be good at what I do.</p><p>So, basically, I don't accept the premise.  We used to have offshore coworkers from India, and they were useless.  They'd reopen bug reports because the same package failed to build for TOTALLY unrelated reasons.  ("TeX is not installed" and "linker error due to frame table full" are not the same bug.)  Since then, we started hiring people in China, and actually hiring them as full-time staff, and it works a lot better.  They're not all hugely experienced, but they're solid, and they learn.  (They even argue with us sometimes, which I'm really enthused about.  That's how you get good.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm a self-taught cowboy programmer .
Never took a single CS course.I spent ten years on the ISO C committee .
My coworkers like my code reviews because I 'm thorough and careful .
While my code is n't as good as I 'd like it to be , the big hunk of my code that we put into our last product release has one known outstanding bug , and it 's considered " cosmetic " -- it never impacts the actual output .
( And that 's for five thousand lines of code I produced in three weeks... ) I do n't buy it .
I am a big fan of the " hacker ethic " -- and I see maintainability and code quality as * central * to it .
Sloppy work is habit forming .
The reason I can type ten-line shell scripts in at the prompt and have them work is that I have worked really hard to be good at what I do.So , basically , I do n't accept the premise .
We used to have offshore coworkers from India , and they were useless .
They 'd reopen bug reports because the same package failed to build for TOTALLY unrelated reasons .
( " TeX is not installed " and " linker error due to frame table full " are not the same bug .
) Since then , we started hiring people in China , and actually hiring them as full-time staff , and it works a lot better .
They 're not all hugely experienced , but they 're solid , and they learn .
( They even argue with us sometimes , which I 'm really enthused about .
That 's how you get good .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm a self-taught cowboy programmer.
Never took a single CS course.I spent ten years on the ISO C committee.
My coworkers like my code reviews because I'm thorough and careful.
While my code isn't as good as I'd like it to be, the big hunk of my code that we put into our last product release has one known outstanding bug, and it's considered "cosmetic" -- it never impacts the actual output.
(And that's for five thousand lines of code I produced in three weeks...)I don't buy it.
I am a big fan of the "hacker ethic" -- and I see maintainability and code quality as *central* to it.
Sloppy work is habit forming.
The reason I can type ten-line shell scripts in at the prompt and have them work is that I have worked really hard to be good at what I do.So, basically, I don't accept the premise.
We used to have offshore coworkers from India, and they were useless.
They'd reopen bug reports because the same package failed to build for TOTALLY unrelated reasons.
("TeX is not installed" and "linker error due to frame table full" are not the same bug.
)  Since then, we started hiring people in China, and actually hiring them as full-time staff, and it works a lot better.
They're not all hugely experienced, but they're solid, and they learn.
(They even argue with us sometimes, which I'm really enthused about.
That's how you get good.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519905</id>
	<title>Re:Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creativity is innate to humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creativity is innate to humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creativity is innate to humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519691</id>
	<title>Apples to Oranges?</title>
	<author>lie2me</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"hacker ethic" as in "getting things done", versus "professional ethic" as in "cheating your way through school and career"? Let me see...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" hacker ethic " as in " getting things done " , versus " professional ethic " as in " cheating your way through school and career " ?
Let me see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"hacker ethic" as in "getting things done", versus "professional ethic" as in "cheating your way through school and career"?
Let me see...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519635</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>sifur</author>
	<datestamp>1246269360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hackers don't make hacks. I feel that you don't understand the term 'Hacker'. The 'hack' in hacker is not about hacking something together, it is about hacking your way through an unknown to come out the other side with an understanding of a thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackers do n't make hacks .
I feel that you do n't understand the term 'Hacker' .
The 'hack ' in hacker is not about hacking something together , it is about hacking your way through an unknown to come out the other side with an understanding of a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackers don't make hacks.
I feel that you don't understand the term 'Hacker'.
The 'hack' in hacker is not about hacking something together, it is about hacking your way through an unknown to come out the other side with an understanding of a thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519727</id>
	<title>Horse Pucky</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1246269600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are just a bunch of really bad programmers out there. Degrees and nationality are largely irrelevant to skill at it. Don't blame "kids these days" or whatever because you're not good at filtering out the bad ones. It's not particularly difficult to spot the good ones, they're pretty enthusiastic about the questions you ask them and the problems you give them when you're interviewing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are just a bunch of really bad programmers out there .
Degrees and nationality are largely irrelevant to skill at it .
Do n't blame " kids these days " or whatever because you 're not good at filtering out the bad ones .
It 's not particularly difficult to spot the good ones , they 're pretty enthusiastic about the questions you ask them and the problems you give them when you 're interviewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are just a bunch of really bad programmers out there.
Degrees and nationality are largely irrelevant to skill at it.
Don't blame "kids these days" or whatever because you're not good at filtering out the bad ones.
It's not particularly difficult to spot the good ones, they're pretty enthusiastic about the questions you ask them and the problems you give them when you're interviewing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522737</id>
	<title>Re:You are not a cowboy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246284360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>peter *is* a cowboy.  if you doubt<br>me, just ask him some time why<br>roberta lembke kicked him off the<br>campus computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>peter * is * a cowboy .
if you doubtme , just ask him some time whyroberta lembke kicked him off thecampus computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>peter *is* a cowboy.
if you doubtme, just ask him some time whyroberta lembke kicked him off thecampus computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519903</id>
	<title>Author, author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' &#226;" the hallmark of today's programming generation in America &#226;" are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term...</i></p><p>I take it that McAllister writes books and not code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be sure , self-taught 'cowboy coders '   " the hallmark of today 's programming generation in America   " are technically proficient , McAllister writes , 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term...I take it that McAllister writes books and not code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' â" the hallmark of today's programming generation in America â" are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term...I take it that McAllister writes books and not code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519327</id>
	<title>Software engineering is not a new concept.</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1246268340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...</p></div><p>Flamebait. The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot. Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always true, and when it is true it also applies to math or engineering or whatever grads whose parents buttercupped them with promises of the American dream when they finished school. It is their fault for not anticipating reality just as it will be the Indians' fault if they refuse to anticipate their jobs going somewhere cheaper.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.</p></div><p>They're already here, usually called "Software Engineering. The coursework is usually half business, half programming and IT. If you can survive rolling your eyes at all the buzzwords and colored charts, it's decent preparation for becoming a Dilbertian drone. Plus, you won't have to sweat learning the vector calculus you'll never use outside of school.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And though HTC 's Vineet Nayar 's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...Flamebait .
The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot .
Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always true , and when it is true it also applies to math or engineering or whatever grads whose parents buttercupped them with promises of the American dream when they finished school .
It is their fault for not anticipating reality just as it will be the Indians ' fault if they refuse to anticipate their jobs going somewhere cheaper.there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.They 're already here , usually called " Software Engineering .
The coursework is usually half business , half programming and IT .
If you can survive rolling your eyes at all the buzzwords and colored charts , it 's decent preparation for becoming a Dilbertian drone .
Plus , you wo n't have to sweat learning the vector calculus you 'll never use outside of school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...Flamebait.
The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot.
Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always true, and when it is true it also applies to math or engineering or whatever grads whose parents buttercupped them with promises of the American dream when they finished school.
It is their fault for not anticipating reality just as it will be the Indians' fault if they refuse to anticipate their jobs going somewhere cheaper.there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory.They're already here, usually called "Software Engineering.
The coursework is usually half business, half programming and IT.
If you can survive rolling your eyes at all the buzzwords and colored charts, it's decent preparation for becoming a Dilbertian drone.
Plus, you won't have to sweat learning the vector calculus you'll never use outside of school.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522747</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1246284420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You tell me college football, if you have possession of the ball and your knee touches the ground, the ball is down, whether or not the player was tackled. I give you a college football game, and the first time you try to kick a field goal, the ball is downed 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage because the holder's knee is touching the ground."</p><p>Can you translate that for those of us who only speak Rugby?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You tell me college football , if you have possession of the ball and your knee touches the ground , the ball is down , whether or not the player was tackled .
I give you a college football game , and the first time you try to kick a field goal , the ball is downed 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage because the holder 's knee is touching the ground .
" Can you translate that for those of us who only speak Rugby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You tell me college football, if you have possession of the ball and your knee touches the ground, the ball is down, whether or not the player was tackled.
I give you a college football game, and the first time you try to kick a field goal, the ball is downed 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage because the holder's knee is touching the ground.
"Can you translate that for those of us who only speak Rugby?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521359</id>
	<title>Re:Says who?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246277040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not a cowboy programmer. If you're being careful, documenting your code, and write maintainable, quality, code... you're not a cowboy.</p><p>"Cowboy programmer" doesn't mean "not formally educated." It means they swoop in to 'fix' issues at the last minute with giant masses of crappy code, then leave when it comes time to sort out the mess. A lot of organizations see the cowboys as the "heros", since they can resolve the problem quickly, but they never bother to account for the sheer mass of wasted time their solution created elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not a cowboy programmer .
If you 're being careful , documenting your code , and write maintainable , quality , code... you 're not a cowboy .
" Cowboy programmer " does n't mean " not formally educated .
" It means they swoop in to 'fix ' issues at the last minute with giant masses of crappy code , then leave when it comes time to sort out the mess .
A lot of organizations see the cowboys as the " heros " , since they can resolve the problem quickly , but they never bother to account for the sheer mass of wasted time their solution created elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not a cowboy programmer.
If you're being careful, documenting your code, and write maintainable, quality, code... you're not a cowboy.
"Cowboy programmer" doesn't mean "not formally educated.
" It means they swoop in to 'fix' issues at the last minute with giant masses of crappy code, then leave when it comes time to sort out the mess.
A lot of organizations see the cowboys as the "heros", since they can resolve the problem quickly, but they never bother to account for the sheer mass of wasted time their solution created elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520667</id>
	<title>That guy again?</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1246273380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe we're hearing from that
outsourcing suit again.</p><p>Of course most US engineers don't want a
mere vocational education.  What Mr. Outsourcer
is looking for is compliant graduates from 2-year
schools who will then go on to be "finished" in whatever
in-house training they offer (almost certainly, they
will be programming Java under Eclipse).</p><p>He shouldn't come crying to us when the next
Twitter, Google, Slashdot, etc. is invented by
some dude from America who wrote the whole thing
in Haskell using vi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe we 're hearing from that outsourcing suit again.Of course most US engineers do n't want a mere vocational education .
What Mr. Outsourcer is looking for is compliant graduates from 2-year schools who will then go on to be " finished " in whatever in-house training they offer ( almost certainly , they will be programming Java under Eclipse ) .He should n't come crying to us when the next Twitter , Google , Slashdot , etc .
is invented by some dude from America who wrote the whole thing in Haskell using vi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe we're hearing from that
outsourcing suit again.Of course most US engineers don't want a
mere vocational education.
What Mr. Outsourcer
is looking for is compliant graduates from 2-year
schools who will then go on to be "finished" in whatever
in-house training they offer (almost certainly, they
will be programming Java under Eclipse).He shouldn't come crying to us when the next
Twitter, Google, Slashdot, etc.
is invented by
some dude from America who wrote the whole thing
in Haskell using vi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520379</id>
	<title>Re:Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1246272000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I play Magic: the Gathering a bit and read some of the daily articles from time to time.  One of the authors is Mark Rosewater, a head designer.  One of the things he talks about is design in the abstract, which has a lot of application beyond games.  One of the things he talks about is how to learn to be creative.  Here is a sample article about how to be creative:<br>
<a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr273" title="wizards.com">http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr273</a> [wizards.com]
</p><p>
Another example is the book "How to solve it".  This is a rather interesting book, because it gives steps on how to solve problems -- steps that, once they become ingrained, act exactly like creativity.
</p><p>
And for teaching a creative people to be formal, a famous counterexample is Ramanujan, and Indian mathematician of great creativity that could never be made to learn "the correct ways to apply [his] ideas".  Hardy tried, and failed to do that.
</p><p>
This is ironic: only after writing the about paragraph did I read down to where you said "lack of creativity is why Indian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I play Magic : the Gathering a bit and read some of the daily articles from time to time .
One of the authors is Mark Rosewater , a head designer .
One of the things he talks about is design in the abstract , which has a lot of application beyond games .
One of the things he talks about is how to learn to be creative .
Here is a sample article about how to be creative : http : //www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx ? x = mtgcom/daily/mr273 [ wizards.com ] Another example is the book " How to solve it " .
This is a rather interesting book , because it gives steps on how to solve problems -- steps that , once they become ingrained , act exactly like creativity .
And for teaching a creative people to be formal , a famous counterexample is Ramanujan , and Indian mathematician of great creativity that could never be made to learn " the correct ways to apply [ his ] ideas " .
Hardy tried , and failed to do that .
This is ironic : only after writing the about paragraph did I read down to where you said " lack of creativity is why Indian ... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I play Magic: the Gathering a bit and read some of the daily articles from time to time.
One of the authors is Mark Rosewater, a head designer.
One of the things he talks about is design in the abstract, which has a lot of application beyond games.
One of the things he talks about is how to learn to be creative.
Here is a sample article about how to be creative:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr273 [wizards.com]

Another example is the book "How to solve it".
This is a rather interesting book, because it gives steps on how to solve problems -- steps that, once they become ingrained, act exactly like creativity.
And for teaching a creative people to be formal, a famous counterexample is Ramanujan, and Indian mathematician of great creativity that could never be made to learn "the correct ways to apply [his] ideas".
Hardy tried, and failed to do that.
This is ironic: only after writing the about paragraph did I read down to where you said "lack of creativity is why Indian ...".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525211</id>
	<title>Re:Physics? Philosophy?</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1246393860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in?</p></div></blockquote><p>CS grads are aware of to mixed degrees of concepts such as Moore's Law, Chip Design, FPGAs etc. The more involved with modules in System Level Design they are, the more likely they are to know this stuff. There are tonnes of other areas of computing where an understanding of the physics of the machince has an impact on how you solve particular problems.</p><blockquote><div><p>Where does philosophy fit in?</p></div></blockquote><p>This is stuff which is more art than really science - a set of heuristics and concepts for dealing with certain kinds of problem. For example Human Computer Interaction, AI and debateably Computability and Intractability. Maybe this isn't Plato's philosophy but it involves the same abstract parts of the brain in my view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in ? CS grads are aware of to mixed degrees of concepts such as Moore 's Law , Chip Design , FPGAs etc .
The more involved with modules in System Level Design they are , the more likely they are to know this stuff .
There are tonnes of other areas of computing where an understanding of the physics of the machince has an impact on how you solve particular problems.Where does philosophy fit in ? This is stuff which is more art than really science - a set of heuristics and concepts for dealing with certain kinds of problem .
For example Human Computer Interaction , AI and debateably Computability and Intractability .
Maybe this is n't Plato 's philosophy but it involves the same abstract parts of the brain in my view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in?CS grads are aware of to mixed degrees of concepts such as Moore's Law, Chip Design, FPGAs etc.
The more involved with modules in System Level Design they are, the more likely they are to know this stuff.
There are tonnes of other areas of computing where an understanding of the physics of the machince has an impact on how you solve particular problems.Where does philosophy fit in?This is stuff which is more art than really science - a set of heuristics and concepts for dealing with certain kinds of problem.
For example Human Computer Interaction, AI and debateably Computability and Intractability.
Maybe this isn't Plato's philosophy but it involves the same abstract parts of the brain in my view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519567</id>
	<title>"Programmers"</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1246269120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Developers", what have you.  These names are overly generic, causing needless bickering about what they mean to various people.  For a project of any size or consequence, you are likely going to need a spectrum of skills and perspectives to achieve anything worthwhile.  If you are whining to the wold at large that every "programmer" doesn't fit the role you want someone to fill, you probably don't have such a project, or *you* are the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Developers " , what have you .
These names are overly generic , causing needless bickering about what they mean to various people .
For a project of any size or consequence , you are likely going to need a spectrum of skills and perspectives to achieve anything worthwhile .
If you are whining to the wold at large that every " programmer " does n't fit the role you want someone to fill , you probably do n't have such a project , or * you * are the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Developers", what have you.
These names are overly generic, causing needless bickering about what they mean to various people.
For a project of any size or consequence, you are likely going to need a spectrum of skills and perspectives to achieve anything worthwhile.
If you are whining to the wold at large that every "programmer" doesn't fit the role you want someone to fill, you probably don't have such a project, or *you* are the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522905</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>cryptoluddite</author>
	<datestamp>1246285680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with most IDE's is that the vast majority of the display is taken up with information that is rarely used.  This is the same problem as Gnome's file dialog, where one of the 'enhancing usability' mock-ups had less than 22\% of the area actually showing files (in contrast to 60\% for Windows).  All those sidebars and 'clippy' panels don't help when they actually get in the way of the code.</p><p>In my workplace the Windows developers typically have three or four monitors, but they only look at 20-30 lines of code at once, in a little tiny, wide panel.  Meanwhile I'm showing 90 lines per vim window, which is enough to show whole even most of their functions... with a larger font.  It's completely absurd to have 3 monitors and look at code through even a 30 line panel.  I can't work that way.  I wouldn't want to.</p><p>IDEs do have some useful features to improve developing, but their interfaces and clumsy editors (compared to vim) are a real stumbling block for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with most IDE 's is that the vast majority of the display is taken up with information that is rarely used .
This is the same problem as Gnome 's file dialog , where one of the 'enhancing usability ' mock-ups had less than 22 \ % of the area actually showing files ( in contrast to 60 \ % for Windows ) .
All those sidebars and 'clippy ' panels do n't help when they actually get in the way of the code.In my workplace the Windows developers typically have three or four monitors , but they only look at 20-30 lines of code at once , in a little tiny , wide panel .
Meanwhile I 'm showing 90 lines per vim window , which is enough to show whole even most of their functions... with a larger font .
It 's completely absurd to have 3 monitors and look at code through even a 30 line panel .
I ca n't work that way .
I would n't want to.IDEs do have some useful features to improve developing , but their interfaces and clumsy editors ( compared to vim ) are a real stumbling block for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with most IDE's is that the vast majority of the display is taken up with information that is rarely used.
This is the same problem as Gnome's file dialog, where one of the 'enhancing usability' mock-ups had less than 22\% of the area actually showing files (in contrast to 60\% for Windows).
All those sidebars and 'clippy' panels don't help when they actually get in the way of the code.In my workplace the Windows developers typically have three or four monitors, but they only look at 20-30 lines of code at once, in a little tiny, wide panel.
Meanwhile I'm showing 90 lines per vim window, which is enough to show whole even most of their functions... with a larger font.
It's completely absurd to have 3 monitors and look at code through even a 30 line panel.
I can't work that way.
I wouldn't want to.IDEs do have some useful features to improve developing, but their interfaces and clumsy editors (compared to vim) are a real stumbling block for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528313</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're using a site that was created entirely in glue. What does that tell you about hackers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're using a site that was created entirely in glue .
What does that tell you about hackers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're using a site that was created entirely in glue.
What does that tell you about hackers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519643</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>cshark</author>
	<datestamp>1246269360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this person has a point.<br>Let's re-evaluate. But in doing so, let's be fair.</p><p>A programmer is only as good or as bad as the direction he gets.<br>I propose creating a new kind of middle manager.</p><p>You know... someone competent who has a basic understanding of process and why it's important to spend the time to put it in place, lol.</p><p>Or am I asking too much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this person has a point.Let 's re-evaluate .
But in doing so , let 's be fair.A programmer is only as good or as bad as the direction he gets.I propose creating a new kind of middle manager.You know... someone competent who has a basic understanding of process and why it 's important to spend the time to put it in place , lol.Or am I asking too much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this person has a point.Let's re-evaluate.
But in doing so, let's be fair.A programmer is only as good or as bad as the direction he gets.I propose creating a new kind of middle manager.You know... someone competent who has a basic understanding of process and why it's important to spend the time to put it in place, lol.Or am I asking too much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521965</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246280100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perl is glue. Glue is messy. It's supposed to be messy</p></div><p>Given equal strength, I'll take the less messy glue (say, Tcl or Ruby) over more messy glue every time.</p><p>Perl is definitely much more messy than it needs to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl is glue .
Glue is messy .
It 's supposed to be messyGiven equal strength , I 'll take the less messy glue ( say , Tcl or Ruby ) over more messy glue every time.Perl is definitely much more messy than it needs to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl is glue.
Glue is messy.
It's supposed to be messyGiven equal strength, I'll take the less messy glue (say, Tcl or Ruby) over more messy glue every time.Perl is definitely much more messy than it needs to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523825</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>chromatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246292880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>Perl is glue.</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>The GP was apparently talking about <a href="http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Acme::Inline::PERL" title="cpan.org" rel="nofollow">PERL</a> [cpan.org], which is a joke programming language in which it's impossible to write maintainable code.  You're thinking of the <a href="http://www.perl.org/" title="perl.org" rel="nofollow">Perl</a> [perl.org] programming language, which allows untrained novices to do useful things while not preventing diligent and careful programmers from writing effective and maintainable code.</p><p>You can safely ignore the opinion of anyone who spells the latter PERL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl is glue .
The GP was apparently talking about PERL [ cpan.org ] , which is a joke programming language in which it 's impossible to write maintainable code .
You 're thinking of the Perl [ perl.org ] programming language , which allows untrained novices to do useful things while not preventing diligent and careful programmers from writing effective and maintainable code.You can safely ignore the opinion of anyone who spells the latter PERL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Perl is glue.
The GP was apparently talking about PERL [cpan.org], which is a joke programming language in which it's impossible to write maintainable code.
You're thinking of the Perl [perl.org] programming language, which allows untrained novices to do useful things while not preventing diligent and careful programmers from writing effective and maintainable code.You can safely ignore the opinion of anyone who spells the latter PERL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532277</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246389300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt any developer needs an IDE, any more than any driver needs synchromesh.</p><p>But if it makes the job easier, then why not use it?  Unless you're just being a curmudgeon for the sake of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt any developer needs an IDE , any more than any driver needs synchromesh.But if it makes the job easier , then why not use it ?
Unless you 're just being a curmudgeon for the sake of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt any developer needs an IDE, any more than any driver needs synchromesh.But if it makes the job easier, then why not use it?
Unless you're just being a curmudgeon for the sake of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</id>
	<title>Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can take a creative person and teach them the correct ways to apply their ideas, but you can't take someone that knows the 'rules and regulations' inside and out, but sucks at independent thinking and teach them to be creative.

<br> <br>

Hence why you'll get a bunch of people who have the same degrees from the same universities but they will have capabilities that are miles apart when it comes to software development. All the people were given the nuts and bolts knowledge, but only the creative ones excel in the real world think outside the box environments. That's not to say there aren't places for the 'by-the-book' developer, but it'll be maintenance coding, and not make the latest cutting edge app or game.
<br> <br>

Hacker mentality or not, lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results. (And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can take a creative person and teach them the correct ways to apply their ideas , but you ca n't take someone that knows the 'rules and regulations ' inside and out , but sucks at independent thinking and teach them to be creative .
Hence why you 'll get a bunch of people who have the same degrees from the same universities but they will have capabilities that are miles apart when it comes to software development .
All the people were given the nuts and bolts knowledge , but only the creative ones excel in the real world think outside the box environments .
That 's not to say there are n't places for the 'by-the-book ' developer , but it 'll be maintenance coding , and not make the latest cutting edge app or game .
Hacker mentality or not , lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results .
( And before I get flamed , I 'm saying this in general , I 'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there , just as there are many uncreative American developers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can take a creative person and teach them the correct ways to apply their ideas, but you can't take someone that knows the 'rules and regulations' inside and out, but sucks at independent thinking and teach them to be creative.
Hence why you'll get a bunch of people who have the same degrees from the same universities but they will have capabilities that are miles apart when it comes to software development.
All the people were given the nuts and bolts knowledge, but only the creative ones excel in the real world think outside the box environments.
That's not to say there aren't places for the 'by-the-book' developer, but it'll be maintenance coding, and not make the latest cutting edge app or game.
Hacker mentality or not, lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results.
(And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519587</id>
	<title>while cheaper  quality { send work overseas }</title>
	<author>zerointeger</author>
	<datestamp>1246269180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel dumber having read someones this... thanks for taking 3-5 minutes of my life that I cannot get back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel dumber having read someones this... thanks for taking 3-5 minutes of my life that I can not get back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel dumber having read someones this... thanks for taking 3-5 minutes of my life that I cannot get back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520709</id>
	<title>Computer science is irrelevant to business.</title>
	<author>emes</author>
	<datestamp>1246273560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't understand why anyone is surprised that people trained in computer science are ill equipped to develop<br>business software.</p><p>How many computer science graduates typically have the slightest clue what accounting is, or how it works?</p><p>How many computer science undergraduate programs deal with the customary and legal environment of<br>business?</p><p>How many computer science programs deal with the realities of designing and maintaining a datacenter,<br>in theory and/or practice?</p><p>Computer science is a theoretical self-serving discipline designed to produce more computer science<br>graduate students. Anyone who learns practical, appropriate, and customary reality does so more<br>often despite rather than because of their education.</p><p>Time for a radical reassessment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't understand why anyone is surprised that people trained in computer science are ill equipped to developbusiness software.How many computer science graduates typically have the slightest clue what accounting is , or how it works ? How many computer science undergraduate programs deal with the customary and legal environment ofbusiness ? How many computer science programs deal with the realities of designing and maintaining a datacenter,in theory and/or practice ? Computer science is a theoretical self-serving discipline designed to produce more computer sciencegraduate students .
Anyone who learns practical , appropriate , and customary reality does so moreoften despite rather than because of their education.Time for a radical reassessment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't understand why anyone is surprised that people trained in computer science are ill equipped to developbusiness software.How many computer science graduates typically have the slightest clue what accounting is, or how it works?How many computer science undergraduate programs deal with the customary and legal environment ofbusiness?How many computer science programs deal with the realities of designing and maintaining a datacenter,in theory and/or practice?Computer science is a theoretical self-serving discipline designed to produce more computer sciencegraduate students.
Anyone who learns practical, appropriate, and customary reality does so moreoften despite rather than because of their education.Time for a radical reassessment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041</id>
	<title>You are not a cowboy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a self-taught cowboy programmer.</p> </div><p>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My coworkers like my code reviews because I'm thorough and careful.</p></div><p>You are not a cowboy programmer.</p><p>Cowboys do not do code reviews. Cowboys do not question their own code. Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations. Cowboys don't test. Cowboys treat users like idiots. Cowboys don't document.</p><p>-Rick</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a self-taught cowboy programmer .
...My coworkers like my code reviews because I 'm thorough and careful.You are not a cowboy programmer.Cowboys do not do code reviews .
Cowboys do not question their own code .
Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations .
Cowboys do n't test .
Cowboys treat users like idiots .
Cowboys do n't document.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a self-taught cowboy programmer.
...My coworkers like my code reviews because I'm thorough and careful.You are not a cowboy programmer.Cowboys do not do code reviews.
Cowboys do not question their own code.
Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations.
Cowboys don't test.
Cowboys treat users like idiots.
Cowboys don't document.-Rick
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519931</id>
	<title>Re:Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The creative Indian developers all live here in the US after getting an H1B. Those that were obviously deficient are left in India working as outsourced contractors. We have this stereotype that Indian developers suck primarily because only the dregs are hired for outsourcing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The creative Indian developers all live here in the US after getting an H1B .
Those that were obviously deficient are left in India working as outsourced contractors .
We have this stereotype that Indian developers suck primarily because only the dregs are hired for outsourcing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The creative Indian developers all live here in the US after getting an H1B.
Those that were obviously deficient are left in India working as outsourced contractors.
We have this stereotype that Indian developers suck primarily because only the dregs are hired for outsourcing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520761</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1246273920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Neil McAllister is an idiot. Stop posting his "stories". </i></p><p>Why not?  They generate tons of page and ad views from people feeding the troll, people complaining about the troll, and people explaining that they're<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ah, hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me make this as clear as I can make it : Neil McAllister is an idiot .
Stop posting his " stories " .
Why not ?
They generate tons of page and ad views from people feeding the troll , people complaining about the troll , and people explaining that they 're ... ah , hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Neil McAllister is an idiot.
Stop posting his "stories".
Why not?
They generate tons of page and ad views from people feeding the troll, people complaining about the troll, and people explaining that they're ... ah, hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523099</id>
	<title>Re:Software engineering is not a new concept.</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246286940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised the US hasn't still hasn't done this yet.  Lots of other places have computer science degrees, software engineering degrees and even some "programming" or "software development" one or two year certificate and diploma programs at tech schools.  As it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised the US has n't still has n't done this yet .
Lots of other places have computer science degrees , software engineering degrees and even some " programming " or " software development " one or two year certificate and diploma programs at tech schools .
As it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised the US hasn't still hasn't done this yet.
Lots of other places have computer science degrees, software engineering degrees and even some "programming" or "software development" one or two year certificate and diploma programs at tech schools.
As it should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520155</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246271100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if a good programmer uses a GUI he suddenly suck? What you code in doesn't decide the quality of your code. Besides using the right tools to cut down on development time shows more skill than coding in a text editor 'cause "it's cool".</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if a good programmer uses a GUI he suddenly suck ?
What you code in does n't decide the quality of your code .
Besides using the right tools to cut down on development time shows more skill than coding in a text editor 'cause " it 's cool " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if a good programmer uses a GUI he suddenly suck?
What you code in doesn't decide the quality of your code.
Besides using the right tools to cut down on development time shows more skill than coding in a text editor 'cause "it's cool".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525173</id>
	<title>Re:Software engineering is not a new concept.</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246393560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that. It's a mixture of the maths, physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing. Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow, not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country. Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced' at commodity rates.</i></p><p>Witty and incisive. Well done. Keep up the good work -- the world needs more folks like you presenting these sorts of points in such a manner.</p><p>Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that .
It 's a mixture of the maths , physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing .
Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow , not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country .
Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced ' at commodity rates.Witty and incisive .
Well done .
Keep up the good work -- the world needs more folks like you presenting these sorts of points in such a manner.Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that.
It's a mixture of the maths, physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing.
Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow, not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country.
Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced' at commodity rates.Witty and incisive.
Well done.
Keep up the good work -- the world needs more folks like you presenting these sorts of points in such a manner.Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519841</id>
	<title>Re:How about we start teaching REAL Programming...</title>
	<author>mhall119</author>
	<datestamp>1246270020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly is eclipse any more GUI-centric than VIM or Emacs?  What exactly "grunt work" does it insulate you from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly is eclipse any more GUI-centric than VIM or Emacs ?
What exactly " grunt work " does it insulate you from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly is eclipse any more GUI-centric than VIM or Emacs?
What exactly "grunt work" does it insulate you from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520337</id>
	<title>Different Cultures</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1246271880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that we're past the absurdities in the summary, it may be a useful reminder to many the economic culture in the U.S. still has a strong 'cowboy' mentality.</p><p>I would argue it rewards and embraces 'cowboy' coding because it's the cheapest/fastest way to implement a new idea.</p><p>Having dealt with Asian cultures in a business environment, the cultures don't reward the 'cowboy mentality.' They can reproduce cheaper/smaller/faster things very, very well. But don't ask them for new ideas.  American business is full of new ideas.  I just wish we had a less restrictive legal environment to let those new ideas flourish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we 're past the absurdities in the summary , it may be a useful reminder to many the economic culture in the U.S. still has a strong 'cowboy ' mentality.I would argue it rewards and embraces 'cowboy ' coding because it 's the cheapest/fastest way to implement a new idea.Having dealt with Asian cultures in a business environment , the cultures do n't reward the 'cowboy mentality .
' They can reproduce cheaper/smaller/faster things very , very well .
But do n't ask them for new ideas .
American business is full of new ideas .
I just wish we had a less restrictive legal environment to let those new ideas flourish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we're past the absurdities in the summary, it may be a useful reminder to many the economic culture in the U.S. still has a strong 'cowboy' mentality.I would argue it rewards and embraces 'cowboy' coding because it's the cheapest/fastest way to implement a new idea.Having dealt with Asian cultures in a business environment, the cultures don't reward the 'cowboy mentality.
' They can reproduce cheaper/smaller/faster things very, very well.
But don't ask them for new ideas.
American business is full of new ideas.
I just wish we had a less restrictive legal environment to let those new ideas flourish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519309</id>
	<title>First!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that's hacker ethic!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that 's hacker ethic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that's hacker ethic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527273</id>
	<title>Re:Structure can be learned creativity cannot</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1246372080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hacker mentality or not, lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results. (And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers)</p></div><p>I don't think it's creativity. I think it's lack of ownership of the code. They don't feel responsible for the end result, partially because of training, partially because it's an outsourcing job, partially because they simply get paid by the hour and nobody who cares notices when they're crap. You get better code when it's written by someone who cares. Hackers usually care quite a lot.</p><p>And it's not because they're Indian either. Plenty of Indians who don't work in outsourcing are excellent programmers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacker mentality or not , lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results .
( And before I get flamed , I 'm saying this in general , I 'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there , just as there are many uncreative American developers ) I do n't think it 's creativity .
I think it 's lack of ownership of the code .
They do n't feel responsible for the end result , partially because of training , partially because it 's an outsourcing job , partially because they simply get paid by the hour and nobody who cares notices when they 're crap .
You get better code when it 's written by someone who cares .
Hackers usually care quite a lot.And it 's not because they 're Indian either .
Plenty of Indians who do n't work in outsourcing are excellent programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacker mentality or not, lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results.
(And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers)I don't think it's creativity.
I think it's lack of ownership of the code.
They don't feel responsible for the end result, partially because of training, partially because it's an outsourcing job, partially because they simply get paid by the hour and nobody who cares notices when they're crap.
You get better code when it's written by someone who cares.
Hackers usually care quite a lot.And it's not because they're Indian either.
Plenty of Indians who don't work in outsourcing are excellent programmers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521647</id>
	<title>Re:opposite of observed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246278480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the problem is not "offshoring" or "foreigners being shite, uncreative, automatons who are not interested in excelling", maybe the problem is with "outsourcing" - a company takes a key business function and shoves it off on the cheapest company they can find, who is then incentivised to do as little as possible (minimize cost) while billing as much as possible (maximise revenue), and refusing to allow any change in the contract without an extortionate payoff.</p><p>As for excelling... I'm not sure that programming is necessarily all that creative. We all like to talk about designing algorithms for a new sharded distributed database system with pure O(n) scalability or whatever. However a great deal of programming is implementing basic business rules for expense claims etc. This requires some technical knowledge, but does it take more than the technical knowledge to (say) process health insurance claims?</p><p>Another thing that many people don't realise is that the US is a net services "insourcer". Many multinationals have their HQ's in the US, and so the managerial white-collar jobs are done in the US while the "do-you-want-fries-with-that-have-a-nice-day" workforce is spread around the world. Manufacturing exports in the US are declining, so services exports have to some extent taken up some of the slack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the problem is not " offshoring " or " foreigners being shite , uncreative , automatons who are not interested in excelling " , maybe the problem is with " outsourcing " - a company takes a key business function and shoves it off on the cheapest company they can find , who is then incentivised to do as little as possible ( minimize cost ) while billing as much as possible ( maximise revenue ) , and refusing to allow any change in the contract without an extortionate payoff.As for excelling... I 'm not sure that programming is necessarily all that creative .
We all like to talk about designing algorithms for a new sharded distributed database system with pure O ( n ) scalability or whatever .
However a great deal of programming is implementing basic business rules for expense claims etc .
This requires some technical knowledge , but does it take more than the technical knowledge to ( say ) process health insurance claims ? Another thing that many people do n't realise is that the US is a net services " insourcer " .
Many multinationals have their HQ 's in the US , and so the managerial white-collar jobs are done in the US while the " do-you-want-fries-with-that-have-a-nice-day " workforce is spread around the world .
Manufacturing exports in the US are declining , so services exports have to some extent taken up some of the slack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the problem is not "offshoring" or "foreigners being shite, uncreative, automatons who are not interested in excelling", maybe the problem is with "outsourcing" - a company takes a key business function and shoves it off on the cheapest company they can find, who is then incentivised to do as little as possible (minimize cost) while billing as much as possible (maximise revenue), and refusing to allow any change in the contract without an extortionate payoff.As for excelling... I'm not sure that programming is necessarily all that creative.
We all like to talk about designing algorithms for a new sharded distributed database system with pure O(n) scalability or whatever.
However a great deal of programming is implementing basic business rules for expense claims etc.
This requires some technical knowledge, but does it take more than the technical knowledge to (say) process health insurance claims?Another thing that many people don't realise is that the US is a net services "insourcer".
Many multinationals have their HQ's in the US, and so the managerial white-collar jobs are done in the US while the "do-you-want-fries-with-that-have-a-nice-day" workforce is spread around the world.
Manufacturing exports in the US are declining, so services exports have to some extent taken up some of the slack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520269</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246271580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...those practices become useless as they overarchitect the system into a corner.</i> <br> <br>Can you expand on this? I thought that over-architecture means that your code is very abstract and modular, perhaps to an unnecessary degree. Certainly, there are disadvantages to over-architecting, but how would it force your system "into a corner"? I would think that under-architecture would be the most likely cause of hard-to-change code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...those practices become useless as they overarchitect the system into a corner .
Can you expand on this ?
I thought that over-architecture means that your code is very abstract and modular , perhaps to an unnecessary degree .
Certainly , there are disadvantages to over-architecting , but how would it force your system " into a corner " ?
I would think that under-architecture would be the most likely cause of hard-to-change code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...those practices become useless as they overarchitect the system into a corner.
Can you expand on this?
I thought that over-architecture means that your code is very abstract and modular, perhaps to an unnecessary degree.
Certainly, there are disadvantages to over-architecting, but how would it force your system "into a corner"?
I would think that under-architecture would be the most likely cause of hard-to-change code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519851</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh noes, we better catch them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes , we better catch them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes, we better catch them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520659</id>
	<title>it's a cultural, not educational, problem</title>
	<author>rsw</author>
	<datestamp>1246273320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As in, the culture of the company.

I'm not a software engineer any more, I'm an electrical engineer (I worked as a coder while I was in college).  In particular, I'm an analog (and sometime digital) circuit designer.  I learned nothing about business practices, Six Sigma, et al in school (S.B. and M.Eng in EE and CS from MIT).  Why?  Because I spent all of my time taking real EE/CS classes.  When I got a job in the industry, \_then\_ I started learning all the practical stuff I hadn't had time for in school.  Why do EE companies do it this way?  Because the cost of failure is so high: we spend a million dollars taping out a chip and it doesn't work because I decided to cowboy my circuit and we're out our money.<br> <br>
Many software companies don't see such large quantization steps in their failure cost: we lost a week here or there because the newbie's coding practices don't mesh with the rest of the team, but management is just watching their Gantt chart and we'll push on them to hit their milestone on time anyway; fuck 'em, they're just code monkeys anyway.<br> <br>
See the difference?  The assumption that designing bad software has a small cost (mostly because it's deferred until much later when it's discovered, plus the assumption that any bug that's discovered is easy to fix) is built into the management style of the software company; the assumption that failure is extremely costly and the necessary culture of rigor are built into the management style of the EE company (well, not all EE companies... but there are shitty companies in every industry).<br> <br>
So why not teach EE students all about Six Sigma et cetera?  Well... when?  I took 5 or 6 classes a term (4 is average at MIT) and still took 6 years to do my degrees.  There's just too much to cover in EE/CS to get it done---and yet there's no "cowboy issue" in my industry, as far as I can tell.<br> <br>
So is there really less to learn in Software Engineering?  In other words, is this just a fundamental difference between EE/CS and SE?  I say absolutely not.  There's an incredible amount of material to cover in SE without getting into business practices: first, pretty much any CS topic is fair game for software engineering (yes, I know they're not quite the same thing).  Then there are more EE-like subjects that most SE people don't get, but should: signal processing, feedback systems (yes, they exist in software just as in hardware, and they can be analyzed with the same fundamental tools).  There's plenty of math to learn: discrete math, algorithms, set/group/category theory, et cetera.  Then there are classes on system architecture, complexity management, and a million other really hard problems.  Given all of this, and only four years to fit it all, any time spent on business practices and Six Sigma is an unmitigated waste of time.  It can be learned faster and better on the job---after all, you may as well learn the business practices at the company you work for, while actually doing useful work.<br> <br>
Far from producing "unemployable" grads, a program with no focus at all on "business practices" will turn out coders who have wrung from college everything that ought to be learned in an academic environment, and who are ready to be apprenticed to an experienced mentor who will teach them the practical details that are dirt simple to understand.<br> <br>
In other words, let Vineet Nayar's coders waste their time learning about bullshit Business Practices instead of expanding their minds by learning something difficult and interesting.  You need code monkeys to do shit work anyway.  There's always a lowest common denominator somewhere.<br> <br>
Or how about this: do you think when you go interview at Google they're more likely to ask you about Six Sigma, or about problems arising in the design of a secure/anonymous/reliable distributed filesystem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As in , the culture of the company .
I 'm not a software engineer any more , I 'm an electrical engineer ( I worked as a coder while I was in college ) .
In particular , I 'm an analog ( and sometime digital ) circuit designer .
I learned nothing about business practices , Six Sigma , et al in school ( S.B .
and M.Eng in EE and CS from MIT ) .
Why ? Because I spent all of my time taking real EE/CS classes .
When I got a job in the industry , \ _then \ _ I started learning all the practical stuff I had n't had time for in school .
Why do EE companies do it this way ?
Because the cost of failure is so high : we spend a million dollars taping out a chip and it does n't work because I decided to cowboy my circuit and we 're out our money .
Many software companies do n't see such large quantization steps in their failure cost : we lost a week here or there because the newbie 's coding practices do n't mesh with the rest of the team , but management is just watching their Gantt chart and we 'll push on them to hit their milestone on time anyway ; fuck 'em , they 're just code monkeys anyway .
See the difference ?
The assumption that designing bad software has a small cost ( mostly because it 's deferred until much later when it 's discovered , plus the assumption that any bug that 's discovered is easy to fix ) is built into the management style of the software company ; the assumption that failure is extremely costly and the necessary culture of rigor are built into the management style of the EE company ( well , not all EE companies... but there are shitty companies in every industry ) .
So why not teach EE students all about Six Sigma et cetera ?
Well... when ?
I took 5 or 6 classes a term ( 4 is average at MIT ) and still took 6 years to do my degrees .
There 's just too much to cover in EE/CS to get it done---and yet there 's no " cowboy issue " in my industry , as far as I can tell .
So is there really less to learn in Software Engineering ?
In other words , is this just a fundamental difference between EE/CS and SE ?
I say absolutely not .
There 's an incredible amount of material to cover in SE without getting into business practices : first , pretty much any CS topic is fair game for software engineering ( yes , I know they 're not quite the same thing ) .
Then there are more EE-like subjects that most SE people do n't get , but should : signal processing , feedback systems ( yes , they exist in software just as in hardware , and they can be analyzed with the same fundamental tools ) .
There 's plenty of math to learn : discrete math , algorithms , set/group/category theory , et cetera .
Then there are classes on system architecture , complexity management , and a million other really hard problems .
Given all of this , and only four years to fit it all , any time spent on business practices and Six Sigma is an unmitigated waste of time .
It can be learned faster and better on the job---after all , you may as well learn the business practices at the company you work for , while actually doing useful work .
Far from producing " unemployable " grads , a program with no focus at all on " business practices " will turn out coders who have wrung from college everything that ought to be learned in an academic environment , and who are ready to be apprenticed to an experienced mentor who will teach them the practical details that are dirt simple to understand .
In other words , let Vineet Nayar 's coders waste their time learning about bullshit Business Practices instead of expanding their minds by learning something difficult and interesting .
You need code monkeys to do shit work anyway .
There 's always a lowest common denominator somewhere .
Or how about this : do you think when you go interview at Google they 're more likely to ask you about Six Sigma , or about problems arising in the design of a secure/anonymous/reliable distributed filesystem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As in, the culture of the company.
I'm not a software engineer any more, I'm an electrical engineer (I worked as a coder while I was in college).
In particular, I'm an analog (and sometime digital) circuit designer.
I learned nothing about business practices, Six Sigma, et al in school (S.B.
and M.Eng in EE and CS from MIT).
Why?  Because I spent all of my time taking real EE/CS classes.
When I got a job in the industry, \_then\_ I started learning all the practical stuff I hadn't had time for in school.
Why do EE companies do it this way?
Because the cost of failure is so high: we spend a million dollars taping out a chip and it doesn't work because I decided to cowboy my circuit and we're out our money.
Many software companies don't see such large quantization steps in their failure cost: we lost a week here or there because the newbie's coding practices don't mesh with the rest of the team, but management is just watching their Gantt chart and we'll push on them to hit their milestone on time anyway; fuck 'em, they're just code monkeys anyway.
See the difference?
The assumption that designing bad software has a small cost (mostly because it's deferred until much later when it's discovered, plus the assumption that any bug that's discovered is easy to fix) is built into the management style of the software company; the assumption that failure is extremely costly and the necessary culture of rigor are built into the management style of the EE company (well, not all EE companies... but there are shitty companies in every industry).
So why not teach EE students all about Six Sigma et cetera?
Well... when?
I took 5 or 6 classes a term (4 is average at MIT) and still took 6 years to do my degrees.
There's just too much to cover in EE/CS to get it done---and yet there's no "cowboy issue" in my industry, as far as I can tell.
So is there really less to learn in Software Engineering?
In other words, is this just a fundamental difference between EE/CS and SE?
I say absolutely not.
There's an incredible amount of material to cover in SE without getting into business practices: first, pretty much any CS topic is fair game for software engineering (yes, I know they're not quite the same thing).
Then there are more EE-like subjects that most SE people don't get, but should: signal processing, feedback systems (yes, they exist in software just as in hardware, and they can be analyzed with the same fundamental tools).
There's plenty of math to learn: discrete math, algorithms, set/group/category theory, et cetera.
Then there are classes on system architecture, complexity management, and a million other really hard problems.
Given all of this, and only four years to fit it all, any time spent on business practices and Six Sigma is an unmitigated waste of time.
It can be learned faster and better on the job---after all, you may as well learn the business practices at the company you work for, while actually doing useful work.
Far from producing "unemployable" grads, a program with no focus at all on "business practices" will turn out coders who have wrung from college everything that ought to be learned in an academic environment, and who are ready to be apprenticed to an experienced mentor who will teach them the practical details that are dirt simple to understand.
In other words, let Vineet Nayar's coders waste their time learning about bullshit Business Practices instead of expanding their minds by learning something difficult and interesting.
You need code monkeys to do shit work anyway.
There's always a lowest common denominator somewhere.
Or how about this: do you think when you go interview at Google they're more likely to ask you about Six Sigma, or about problems arising in the design of a secure/anonymous/reliable distributed filesystem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527451</id>
	<title>Re:You are not a cowboy.</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1246372860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong, they <b>just don't like</b> doing all the stuff you mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , they just do n't like doing all the stuff you mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, they just don't like doing all the stuff you mentioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523979</id>
	<title>what about you need both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like hackers, self-taught, cowboy or whatever's the name of the month who works for me. They have a tendency to get things done (not related to inbox management bs). Presented with a problem I know they'll come up with a solution, unorthodox maybe but one that works. You can always be amazed at how many different technology a good hacker can understand and use and sometime people like that are key to get a project running. Think someone who can interface between the network team, the dba's, the software people and the PMs using their own language and most of the time with more knowledge in their subject matter than them. The problem with them is that most of them are indifferent to processes and quite bad a polishing their work.
<br> <br>
Non-hackers I need too; people with maybe a far less encompassing knowledge but usually a deeper knowledge in more specific fields; resulting in less ability to come up with original ideas; but the ability to follow through a spec and the tedium of finishing a job -as it was requested- to write decent documentation and to follow a process. With just hackers we would release revolutionary product that just don't work; without them we'd probably still be using VB6 and cgi in perl. I need people who care about the intensity of the gradient of the save button on the settings window. I need someone who can sits and update the spec sheet without trying to develop a software to update the spec sheet for him. I need someone who checks the result of the batch job. Yeah boring but seriously it's crucial.
<br> <br>
I see the "hackers" are a special ops force; good when you need to be fast and ruthless; not good when you need to to be in line with international laws and the geneva convention.
<br> <br>
Now please everyone note that I by no mean want to convey the message that non-hacker aren't good programmers; it's in my opinion a matter of mentality in the way they approach a job not a depiction of skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like hackers , self-taught , cowboy or whatever 's the name of the month who works for me .
They have a tendency to get things done ( not related to inbox management bs ) .
Presented with a problem I know they 'll come up with a solution , unorthodox maybe but one that works .
You can always be amazed at how many different technology a good hacker can understand and use and sometime people like that are key to get a project running .
Think someone who can interface between the network team , the dba 's , the software people and the PMs using their own language and most of the time with more knowledge in their subject matter than them .
The problem with them is that most of them are indifferent to processes and quite bad a polishing their work .
Non-hackers I need too ; people with maybe a far less encompassing knowledge but usually a deeper knowledge in more specific fields ; resulting in less ability to come up with original ideas ; but the ability to follow through a spec and the tedium of finishing a job -as it was requested- to write decent documentation and to follow a process .
With just hackers we would release revolutionary product that just do n't work ; without them we 'd probably still be using VB6 and cgi in perl .
I need people who care about the intensity of the gradient of the save button on the settings window .
I need someone who can sits and update the spec sheet without trying to develop a software to update the spec sheet for him .
I need someone who checks the result of the batch job .
Yeah boring but seriously it 's crucial .
I see the " hackers " are a special ops force ; good when you need to be fast and ruthless ; not good when you need to to be in line with international laws and the geneva convention .
Now please everyone note that I by no mean want to convey the message that non-hacker are n't good programmers ; it 's in my opinion a matter of mentality in the way they approach a job not a depiction of skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like hackers, self-taught, cowboy or whatever's the name of the month who works for me.
They have a tendency to get things done (not related to inbox management bs).
Presented with a problem I know they'll come up with a solution, unorthodox maybe but one that works.
You can always be amazed at how many different technology a good hacker can understand and use and sometime people like that are key to get a project running.
Think someone who can interface between the network team, the dba's, the software people and the PMs using their own language and most of the time with more knowledge in their subject matter than them.
The problem with them is that most of them are indifferent to processes and quite bad a polishing their work.
Non-hackers I need too; people with maybe a far less encompassing knowledge but usually a deeper knowledge in more specific fields; resulting in less ability to come up with original ideas; but the ability to follow through a spec and the tedium of finishing a job -as it was requested- to write decent documentation and to follow a process.
With just hackers we would release revolutionary product that just don't work; without them we'd probably still be using VB6 and cgi in perl.
I need people who care about the intensity of the gradient of the save button on the settings window.
I need someone who can sits and update the spec sheet without trying to develop a software to update the spec sheet for him.
I need someone who checks the result of the batch job.
Yeah boring but seriously it's crucial.
I see the "hackers" are a special ops force; good when you need to be fast and ruthless; not good when you need to to be in line with international laws and the geneva convention.
Now please everyone note that I by no mean want to convey the message that non-hacker aren't good programmers; it's in my opinion a matter of mentality in the way they approach a job not a depiction of skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520461</id>
	<title>Re:opposite of observed</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1246272360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's because people in north america and europe grew up with computers and love what they do, people in those countries who grew up with computers in the 80's and 90's are all spoiled rich kids.  Well mostly.</p><p>My dad did a MSc in electrical engineering in india before comming to canada in the 60's, having enrolled in his Bachelors in engineering before he'd lived anywhere that had electricity.  When GE started laying off EE staff in his group he was the last one there so presumably they thought he was useful for something.  So I'm guessing at some point he learned something useful about electricity, but the passion which I have for experimenting with science and technology, because I've had all of those toys as I was growing up wasn't available to him.  I wouldn't be suprised if most people from india and china are the same way still.  The generation comming up now, who were born in the 1990's, and probably late 90's, just like we have in north america all have access to computers and they'll be able to make much more meaninful contributions on the creative side than the previous lot.</p><p>I remember a couple of years ago a friend of mine interviewed for a position as an Apple genius in Canada.  About half of the questions were about the iPhone, which was, at that point, not available in canada (and still pretty new in the US).  No matter how well trained or educated he was in being a computer tech he knew bugger all about how to fix an iPhone, having never seen one let alone tried to use it.</p><p>That said, my experience as a grad student with students from Canada, the US, India, China the middle east etc is that the ones who will actually learn how to do stuff properly (to whatever guidelines you lay out, sometimes intentionally crazy guideliness just to see what they do with them), are the foreigners, not the domestic students.  The foreigners are obviously the best and brightest from wherever they are, or they wouldn't be 10 time zones from home, but they are not burdened with antiquated notions of how to do things because that worked for them 5 years ago.  I was trying to convey this point to the prof of one of the relevant courses, there were a couple of hard core geek types from Canada who could write code for small programs, but not software, and they didn't grasp the merits of object oriented thinking (let alone design), nor were they particularly inclined to consider it.  They'd been coding for 10 years this way, and it worked so why change?  I was sort of fortunate that when I was 13 or so and starting to program I'd learned to use quick basic, turing and then Fortran (which serves me well 17 years later oddly), where the first of those two were dead out the door.  I had to learn C, and then having tried to make real software that you know, people will pay for, using any of C, C++ or Fortran (and HTML/PHP/ASP/Javascript crap), whereas these guys have been using C since high school, which means at least 3 or 4 years of it by the time they get to 3rd year, and they might have picked up some basic java, but their java code is organized like a C program.</p><p>Sure the nerd hacker types have a much better sense of what software can do for you, and by extension are somewhat better at hacking together a solution to a problem, but if you, as an employer, want people to do things a particular way, in my experience at least, you don't generally want people from north america.  When you hire people who come from the Canada/US high school system (who have along with their foreign counterparts graduated a US or canadian university), you tend to get a rather bipolar lot, on one extreme, and they represent 80\% of the group, are people who don't really know anything about computers, through some miracle ( administrations not wanting to fail everyone) passed computer science or engineering and can only write token crap to solve simple problems (they will immediately be promoted to management however because they speak english clearly and understand something about what computers can do), or the hardcore hacker typ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's because people in north america and europe grew up with computers and love what they do , people in those countries who grew up with computers in the 80 's and 90 's are all spoiled rich kids .
Well mostly.My dad did a MSc in electrical engineering in india before comming to canada in the 60 's , having enrolled in his Bachelors in engineering before he 'd lived anywhere that had electricity .
When GE started laying off EE staff in his group he was the last one there so presumably they thought he was useful for something .
So I 'm guessing at some point he learned something useful about electricity , but the passion which I have for experimenting with science and technology , because I 've had all of those toys as I was growing up was n't available to him .
I would n't be suprised if most people from india and china are the same way still .
The generation comming up now , who were born in the 1990 's , and probably late 90 's , just like we have in north america all have access to computers and they 'll be able to make much more meaninful contributions on the creative side than the previous lot.I remember a couple of years ago a friend of mine interviewed for a position as an Apple genius in Canada .
About half of the questions were about the iPhone , which was , at that point , not available in canada ( and still pretty new in the US ) .
No matter how well trained or educated he was in being a computer tech he knew bugger all about how to fix an iPhone , having never seen one let alone tried to use it.That said , my experience as a grad student with students from Canada , the US , India , China the middle east etc is that the ones who will actually learn how to do stuff properly ( to whatever guidelines you lay out , sometimes intentionally crazy guideliness just to see what they do with them ) , are the foreigners , not the domestic students .
The foreigners are obviously the best and brightest from wherever they are , or they would n't be 10 time zones from home , but they are not burdened with antiquated notions of how to do things because that worked for them 5 years ago .
I was trying to convey this point to the prof of one of the relevant courses , there were a couple of hard core geek types from Canada who could write code for small programs , but not software , and they did n't grasp the merits of object oriented thinking ( let alone design ) , nor were they particularly inclined to consider it .
They 'd been coding for 10 years this way , and it worked so why change ?
I was sort of fortunate that when I was 13 or so and starting to program I 'd learned to use quick basic , turing and then Fortran ( which serves me well 17 years later oddly ) , where the first of those two were dead out the door .
I had to learn C , and then having tried to make real software that you know , people will pay for , using any of C , C + + or Fortran ( and HTML/PHP/ASP/Javascript crap ) , whereas these guys have been using C since high school , which means at least 3 or 4 years of it by the time they get to 3rd year , and they might have picked up some basic java , but their java code is organized like a C program.Sure the nerd hacker types have a much better sense of what software can do for you , and by extension are somewhat better at hacking together a solution to a problem , but if you , as an employer , want people to do things a particular way , in my experience at least , you do n't generally want people from north america .
When you hire people who come from the Canada/US high school system ( who have along with their foreign counterparts graduated a US or canadian university ) , you tend to get a rather bipolar lot , on one extreme , and they represent 80 \ % of the group , are people who do n't really know anything about computers , through some miracle ( administrations not wanting to fail everyone ) passed computer science or engineering and can only write token crap to solve simple problems ( they will immediately be promoted to management however because they speak english clearly and understand something about what computers can do ) , or the hardcore hacker typ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's because people in north america and europe grew up with computers and love what they do, people in those countries who grew up with computers in the 80's and 90's are all spoiled rich kids.
Well mostly.My dad did a MSc in electrical engineering in india before comming to canada in the 60's, having enrolled in his Bachelors in engineering before he'd lived anywhere that had electricity.
When GE started laying off EE staff in his group he was the last one there so presumably they thought he was useful for something.
So I'm guessing at some point he learned something useful about electricity, but the passion which I have for experimenting with science and technology, because I've had all of those toys as I was growing up wasn't available to him.
I wouldn't be suprised if most people from india and china are the same way still.
The generation comming up now, who were born in the 1990's, and probably late 90's, just like we have in north america all have access to computers and they'll be able to make much more meaninful contributions on the creative side than the previous lot.I remember a couple of years ago a friend of mine interviewed for a position as an Apple genius in Canada.
About half of the questions were about the iPhone, which was, at that point, not available in canada (and still pretty new in the US).
No matter how well trained or educated he was in being a computer tech he knew bugger all about how to fix an iPhone, having never seen one let alone tried to use it.That said, my experience as a grad student with students from Canada, the US, India, China the middle east etc is that the ones who will actually learn how to do stuff properly (to whatever guidelines you lay out, sometimes intentionally crazy guideliness just to see what they do with them), are the foreigners, not the domestic students.
The foreigners are obviously the best and brightest from wherever they are, or they wouldn't be 10 time zones from home, but they are not burdened with antiquated notions of how to do things because that worked for them 5 years ago.
I was trying to convey this point to the prof of one of the relevant courses, there were a couple of hard core geek types from Canada who could write code for small programs, but not software, and they didn't grasp the merits of object oriented thinking (let alone design), nor were they particularly inclined to consider it.
They'd been coding for 10 years this way, and it worked so why change?
I was sort of fortunate that when I was 13 or so and starting to program I'd learned to use quick basic, turing and then Fortran (which serves me well 17 years later oddly), where the first of those two were dead out the door.
I had to learn C, and then having tried to make real software that you know, people will pay for, using any of C, C++ or Fortran (and HTML/PHP/ASP/Javascript crap), whereas these guys have been using C since high school, which means at least 3 or 4 years of it by the time they get to 3rd year, and they might have picked up some basic java, but their java code is organized like a C program.Sure the nerd hacker types have a much better sense of what software can do for you, and by extension are somewhat better at hacking together a solution to a problem, but if you, as an employer, want people to do things a particular way, in my experience at least, you don't generally want people from north america.
When you hire people who come from the Canada/US high school system (who have along with their foreign counterparts graduated a US or canadian university), you tend to get a rather bipolar lot, on one extreme, and they represent 80\% of the group, are people who don't really know anything about computers, through some miracle ( administrations not wanting to fail everyone) passed computer science or engineering and can only write token crap to solve simple problems (they will immediately be promoted to management however because they speak english clearly and understand something about what computers can do), or the hardcore hacker typ</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522485</id>
	<title>Cows and boys</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1246282800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm working with a highly-educated coder, who takes 5 times as long to do a project because he believes everything they taught him. His code's no better though. And he's terrible at reading others' code, if it wasn't written according to the immutable principles his superior education endowed him with. It's sort of sad. Really. He could have been so much better if he'd learned on his own, by taking other people's real-world code and tearing it down to see how it worked, like the rest of us. Academic coding principles are no substitute for real literacy. And literacy means you're not dependent on the accent to understand the language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm working with a highly-educated coder , who takes 5 times as long to do a project because he believes everything they taught him .
His code 's no better though .
And he 's terrible at reading others ' code , if it was n't written according to the immutable principles his superior education endowed him with .
It 's sort of sad .
Really. He could have been so much better if he 'd learned on his own , by taking other people 's real-world code and tearing it down to see how it worked , like the rest of us .
Academic coding principles are no substitute for real literacy .
And literacy means you 're not dependent on the accent to understand the language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm working with a highly-educated coder, who takes 5 times as long to do a project because he believes everything they taught him.
His code's no better though.
And he's terrible at reading others' code, if it wasn't written according to the immutable principles his superior education endowed him with.
It's sort of sad.
Really. He could have been so much better if he'd learned on his own, by taking other people's real-world code and tearing it down to see how it worked, like the rest of us.
Academic coding principles are no substitute for real literacy.
And literacy means you're not dependent on the accent to understand the language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522733</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs Designers - Hackers Loose every time</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246284300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically the Slashdot quote at the bottom of the page is "<i>The computer should be doing the hard work. That's what it's paid to do, after all. -- Larry Wall in </i>".</p><p>Larry is right, the computer should be doing the hard work which is a primary reason that the language syntax should be simple rather than hacker complex like Larry Wall's PERL. He indites himself and PERL!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically the Slashdot quote at the bottom of the page is " The computer should be doing the hard work .
That 's what it 's paid to do , after all .
-- Larry Wall in " .Larry is right , the computer should be doing the hard work which is a primary reason that the language syntax should be simple rather than hacker complex like Larry Wall 's PERL .
He indites himself and PERL ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically the Slashdot quote at the bottom of the page is "The computer should be doing the hard work.
That's what it's paid to do, after all.
-- Larry Wall in ".Larry is right, the computer should be doing the hard work which is a primary reason that the language syntax should be simple rather than hacker complex like Larry Wall's PERL.
He indites himself and PERL!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519949</id>
	<title>HA HA HA so very wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have worked for many years with developers from around the world....</p><p>I find this entire discussion funny.....</p><p>1. What you forget is that 70\% of the time the customer does not even know what they want.<br>2. Typically the "project manager" does not know how to achieve the desired result</p><p>at this point you then hand it to the programmer as a set of "make this work documents"....</p><p>If sent to someone without the creative angle.... they will give you 100\% what you ask for but that will be 30\% of what you really need.<br>If you take the cowboy hacker developer he will see that the specs do not take into account many items that need to be built.  I see lots of holes in customer requests and docs coming from project managers that would not take into account security, or leave out critical data required in later development.  In a perfect world every development team would have a design engineer who's job it is to check the PM's work for these sorts of things.... Note this would be a person of high creativity and coding capabilities.  Since companies do not have these people give me the hacker style coder every day for real end to end ap development and I will out source the make work stuff.... creative guy builds the ap... step by step programmer from cheap foreign market make me some classes to handle these database transaction.<br>As to supportability.... again make me laugh...</p><p>I have never seen any project that was unsupportable.... some are a bit weird and out of the box... but if you are a developer worth 2 shakes the first thing you should be able to do is dis-assemble code.  Something I see largely lacking from the Indian market...</p><p>To truely be effective as a developer you need to understand the whole picture... That sometimes takes alot of application experience and often vertical market knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have worked for many years with developers from around the world....I find this entire discussion funny.....1 .
What you forget is that 70 \ % of the time the customer does not even know what they want.2 .
Typically the " project manager " does not know how to achieve the desired resultat this point you then hand it to the programmer as a set of " make this work documents " ....If sent to someone without the creative angle.... they will give you 100 \ % what you ask for but that will be 30 \ % of what you really need.If you take the cowboy hacker developer he will see that the specs do not take into account many items that need to be built .
I see lots of holes in customer requests and docs coming from project managers that would not take into account security , or leave out critical data required in later development .
In a perfect world every development team would have a design engineer who 's job it is to check the PM 's work for these sorts of things.... Note this would be a person of high creativity and coding capabilities .
Since companies do not have these people give me the hacker style coder every day for real end to end ap development and I will out source the make work stuff.... creative guy builds the ap... step by step programmer from cheap foreign market make me some classes to handle these database transaction.As to supportability.... again make me laugh...I have never seen any project that was unsupportable.... some are a bit weird and out of the box... but if you are a developer worth 2 shakes the first thing you should be able to do is dis-assemble code .
Something I see largely lacking from the Indian market...To truely be effective as a developer you need to understand the whole picture... That sometimes takes alot of application experience and often vertical market knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have worked for many years with developers from around the world....I find this entire discussion funny.....1.
What you forget is that 70\% of the time the customer does not even know what they want.2.
Typically the "project manager" does not know how to achieve the desired resultat this point you then hand it to the programmer as a set of "make this work documents"....If sent to someone without the creative angle.... they will give you 100\% what you ask for but that will be 30\% of what you really need.If you take the cowboy hacker developer he will see that the specs do not take into account many items that need to be built.
I see lots of holes in customer requests and docs coming from project managers that would not take into account security, or leave out critical data required in later development.
In a perfect world every development team would have a design engineer who's job it is to check the PM's work for these sorts of things.... Note this would be a person of high creativity and coding capabilities.
Since companies do not have these people give me the hacker style coder every day for real end to end ap development and I will out source the make work stuff.... creative guy builds the ap... step by step programmer from cheap foreign market make me some classes to handle these database transaction.As to supportability.... again make me laugh...I have never seen any project that was unsupportable.... some are a bit weird and out of the box... but if you are a developer worth 2 shakes the first thing you should be able to do is dis-assemble code.
Something I see largely lacking from the Indian market...To truely be effective as a developer you need to understand the whole picture... That sometimes takes alot of application experience and often vertical market knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519937</id>
	<title>w/o theory its gambling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory</p></div><p>I read this suggestion as meaning colleges should produce engineers that know how to obey by standards but have no idea about the basics of computing?</p><p>Really, since when has hacking anything to do with computing theory? Hacking means some rapid prototyping and a style of coding that favors experiments over long winded planning. Usually hackers are the one's throwing computing theory out of the window and just throw something together to demonstrate a concept or some cool modification. In that context it does not matter if it performs in all cases or on large data sets.</p><p>So if you want serious engineers that build bridges, I mean software, that work reasonably in all specified contexts, you better don't do it by hacking.</p><p>There is a place for hacking and for serious engineering with process and knowing what the end goal is. Good engineers can do both and they certainly don't trade "succeeding in industry" for knowing what others have learned and demonstrated (theory).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theoryI read this suggestion as meaning colleges should produce engineers that know how to obey by standards but have no idea about the basics of computing ? Really , since when has hacking anything to do with computing theory ?
Hacking means some rapid prototyping and a style of coding that favors experiments over long winded planning .
Usually hackers are the one 's throwing computing theory out of the window and just throw something together to demonstrate a concept or some cool modification .
In that context it does not matter if it performs in all cases or on large data sets.So if you want serious engineers that build bridges , I mean software , that work reasonably in all specified contexts , you better do n't do it by hacking.There is a place for hacking and for serious engineering with process and knowing what the end goal is .
Good engineers can do both and they certainly do n't trade " succeeding in industry " for knowing what others have learned and demonstrated ( theory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theoryI read this suggestion as meaning colleges should produce engineers that know how to obey by standards but have no idea about the basics of computing?Really, since when has hacking anything to do with computing theory?
Hacking means some rapid prototyping and a style of coding that favors experiments over long winded planning.
Usually hackers are the one's throwing computing theory out of the window and just throw something together to demonstrate a concept or some cool modification.
In that context it does not matter if it performs in all cases or on large data sets.So if you want serious engineers that build bridges, I mean software, that work reasonably in all specified contexts, you better don't do it by hacking.There is a place for hacking and for serious engineering with process and knowing what the end goal is.
Good engineers can do both and they certainly don't trade "succeeding in industry" for knowing what others have learned and demonstrated (theory).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520281</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting McAllister. He's the new Dvorak.</title>
	<author>MarcoAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1246271640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you forget one thing, there are no college courses about</p><p>- what to do if a task you scheduled for 6 weeks gets cut to 2 due to somebody in management arbitrarily deciding that 6 weeks "is way too long"<br>- what to do if you are asked for a detailed estimate of a 2-3 month long task in an area you are not familiar with 'by the end of today' and that estimate will be binding<br>- what to do if your technologically sound solution is shot down 'because this would cost too much to implement, can't you hack something for the next release next week'</p><p>etc. etc. etc.</p><p>If put in a job that rewards creating good quality code, good developers will flourish, if put in a job that rewards 'just hacking something together' then the 'self-taught coder' usually will do better because they won't even have to waste time architecting or really thinking, they'll just take the requirements and run with it, whether or not the requirements make sense and whether or not the resulting product will be mantainable, documented, working, or any combination of the above.</p><p>What the US needs, rather than better schools/programs, is better companies focused on creating quality products, not companies that just because there is a perception that 'coding/coders are cheap, we can also outsource' get by with the absolute minimum of quality the market will tolerate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you forget one thing , there are no college courses about- what to do if a task you scheduled for 6 weeks gets cut to 2 due to somebody in management arbitrarily deciding that 6 weeks " is way too long " - what to do if you are asked for a detailed estimate of a 2-3 month long task in an area you are not familiar with 'by the end of today ' and that estimate will be binding- what to do if your technologically sound solution is shot down 'because this would cost too much to implement , ca n't you hack something for the next release next week'etc .
etc. etc.If put in a job that rewards creating good quality code , good developers will flourish , if put in a job that rewards 'just hacking something together ' then the 'self-taught coder ' usually will do better because they wo n't even have to waste time architecting or really thinking , they 'll just take the requirements and run with it , whether or not the requirements make sense and whether or not the resulting product will be mantainable , documented , working , or any combination of the above.What the US needs , rather than better schools/programs , is better companies focused on creating quality products , not companies that just because there is a perception that 'coding/coders are cheap , we can also outsource ' get by with the absolute minimum of quality the market will tolerate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you forget one thing, there are no college courses about- what to do if a task you scheduled for 6 weeks gets cut to 2 due to somebody in management arbitrarily deciding that 6 weeks "is way too long"- what to do if you are asked for a detailed estimate of a 2-3 month long task in an area you are not familiar with 'by the end of today' and that estimate will be binding- what to do if your technologically sound solution is shot down 'because this would cost too much to implement, can't you hack something for the next release next week'etc.
etc. etc.If put in a job that rewards creating good quality code, good developers will flourish, if put in a job that rewards 'just hacking something together' then the 'self-taught coder' usually will do better because they won't even have to waste time architecting or really thinking, they'll just take the requirements and run with it, whether or not the requirements make sense and whether or not the resulting product will be mantainable, documented, working, or any combination of the above.What the US needs, rather than better schools/programs, is better companies focused on creating quality products, not companies that just because there is a perception that 'coding/coders are cheap, we can also outsource' get by with the absolute minimum of quality the market will tolerate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28536733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28533311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28530349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28592315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28538171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28535537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1816226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28535537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519881
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522007
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525211
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28536733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28533311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521899
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28524087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28526465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520523
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28538171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28592315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28525259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28521993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28527273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1816226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28532277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28520375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28519907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28530349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28523565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28522847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1816226.28528561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
