The future may be bright- but I miss the good old days! 18

[guestgulkan]

Take me back to the 1980's when engineers really were engineers.
Computers were new, and you could still go down to
Maplins for a packet of discrete electronic components.
Assembly language was the thing
Ethernet? About 10 people the world knew what that was.
It was like the pioneering days of the old west.

Now, engineers have been reduced to simple 'black box' changers and any half-wit can become an engineer or programmer.

I suppose it's all in the name of progress, but for me the fun and personal job satisfaction has gone.

 

[WheeDoggy]

jad - you are correct in that. I just sometimes forget the plain old black and white when thinking of colors - I guess those are just taken for granted. It actually had 5 colors if you count the nuclear green color that was only available in text mode.
I remember it being "real fun" blending the colors in graphics mode to get something as simple as a green and it looked ridiculous because the pixels were so large.
Satellite dish - I guess you were doing the HAM frequency thing? Never ventured there - just ran up a phone bill which was high with a transfer speed of 300bd

TomKane - Ahhh, yes. Keying in some basic programs out of a book. Some over 1000 lines! (Making alterations along the way )
Here's a link you may enjoy. Has ZX Spectrum emulators for all platforms, some with source available.

http://www.worldofspectrum.org/emulators.html

Regards

 

[dilettante]

Remember when you could get your articles published in magazines without being part of the Fraternal Order of Computer Journalists?

 

[TomKane]

WheeDoggy - thanks for that!

 

[svanels]

I remember the face of that student walking with about 200 punched cards to the compiling desk ... and tripping. Guess what finding a card perforater with a descent printer ribbon was like winning the lotery. The next year I switched from Fortran to Turbo Pascal. The compiler with all my programs just fitted on a 180K floppy. Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[Granvillew]

If tape was the "good old days" where does that leave me?

I started cutting code with punch cards. (I couldn't find a Gandfather emoticon!)

 

[CajunCenturion]

Granvillew - If tape was the "good old days" where does that leave me?

All wound up. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Craig0201]

Finally get round to answering this.....

Software development time is more expensive than hardware to hide the inefficiencies. It has been stated (although I can't remember where) that coding techniques improved 10x against an improvement in PC speed of 1000 times over a 15 year period. Therefore it is cheaper for me to write inefficient code.

Can I write highly efficient code? Sure, I can write Assembler but why should I? My company want code that works well enough to do the job in hand at a reasonable level of efficiency. They don't want the fastest code possible. They want the code that does the job at the lowest overall cost to the business. I make CONSCIOUS decision on how to write the code, trading time for code efficiency. Some code is more efficient, some not so. Why? Because I make a value judgement on what the costs are and what the savings will be.

Just because I choose not to do things in the least number of processor cycles doesn't make me any less of an 'engineer'. Just someone who optimises the resources available to me, including time and money.

Craig

 

[CajunCenturion]

I agree Craig0201 that companies want code that gets the job done and the lowest overall cost to the business.

The key element is in the phrase "lowest overall cost." The overall cost does include response times. The overall cost does include long-term maintenance costs. The overall cost does include processor cycles because you may be taking away cycles from some other process, affecting its response time, and time cost of those persons waiting for the response.

I agree with Craig0201 in that overall cost should be a factor in the development process, but its equally important that you realize and include ALL of the costs, both direct and indirect, weighting the relative importance thereof, when evaluating the total overall cost. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[dilettante]

Gosh, we're drifting into "ethics" territory now. ;-)

Anybody else remember the days when octal was the notation of choice for representing binary values? Or systems where 6-bit characters were used rather than 8?

Those word-oriented machines that were calculation monsters but had no way to directly address individual characters so you did a lot of shifting and masking to get at them?

 

[Craig0201]

CajunCenturion,

Agreed there is a cost to processor cycles, etc. Indeed, I try to write the most efficient code I can for the job in question. I just don't go overboard on it. This is what I meant earlier when I referred to my ROI being higher now. It is about selecting the right level of efficiency.

Craig

 

[skiflyer]

Isn't that just the way things are now Craig and Cajun?

You weigh in the time to develop, the number of uses, etc...

for example, if you want to go through a database once and update values, you're just as good spending 5 minutes writing a python script to do it which takes 20 minutes to run as spending 20 minutes to write a C program which does it in 5 minutes.

However, if you want to ship out the door a database which will be used by thousands of companies millions of times, then milliseconds start to count.

Then again, we can't forget my "get a coke" concept of timing a program (came about when people would ask consistently if they should get a 4x or an 8x CD burner)... and I'd say, once you have to get up to make a sandwich or get a coke, what do you care if it's finishes when you reach the refigerator or when you sit back down?

The one thing I find annoying though, are people who write such horrendously innefficient code for those 5 minute scripts, and who couldn't sit down and write more efficient code to save their lives. Sometimes making the code more efficient is just a matter of pride for me I guess.

Rambling, it's the middle of the week so I earned it .

-Rob

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think we're in complete agreement Craig. Although perhaps it was too subtle, in my previous post, I said, weighting the relative importance thereof, which is the same intention as your position of not to go overboard.
:-D Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Stevehewitt]

Hey,

I've just joined this forum, so sorry about the late response. I'm 19, I've been networking for 4 years and I don't agree with the "Windows Clickers" sterotype mentioned earlier. Thats completly not true - but it makes more sense to use a nice GUI when avaliable. I run various scripts and often go to the cmd prompt when I need it. Its nothing to be scared of. I remember when I was about 10 playing with DOS, finding out EXACTLY what the Format C: /c command does. As fun and more technical those days were, look at the office place and how it has changed. Everything is faster due to the widespread introduction of the Desktop PC and Windows/GUI interface Server.

Steve Hewitt
Systems Manager

 

[AIXSPadmin]

X Windows was developed by MIT in 1984.

Microsoft Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, Windows 2.0 and relatives, Windows/286 and Windows/386 in 1987, Windows 3.0 in 1990, Windows 3.1 in 1992.

Microsoft also had an agreement with IBM to develop OS/2 and they terminated the agreement because MS wanted to continue to develop Windows even though they were to produce OS/2 3.0 to replace OS/2 2.0. MS and IBM had access to each others code at the time.

Windows is good for a desktop workstation, however, it is not a good server by any means. In my former Fortune 500 company, where Windows was used as the Notes platform, it required over 100 servers! which could have been replaced by, I believe, 5 Unix servers.

MS always needs to make everything proprietary to themsleves too. Take Active Directory, MS's proprietary LDAP, and Java which MS tried to modify from Sun to make it proprietary.

Microsoft is trying to make inroads to the data center with their next release of Windows 2003 DataCenter Edition. They should stick to what they are best at: desktop PC, instead of trying to be the entire technology world center! Remember when ole Bill said the web wasn't a part of MS plan because it had no future? Well, the 2003 version of Windows is mainly to be a Web platform. Guess world domination is all MS cares about instead of having the best product.

Sure diversity is needed for almost every business, but they don't attempt to dominate every aspect of every business.

 

[guestgulkan]

To both agree and disagree with SteveHewitt
It's True that computers have had a big impact but a lot of it is negative.
So much computer power is wasted/unused.
Here are some points I have noted:

80+ % of all computers is the workplace are used for simple word processing (and not even that- more like a simple type writer substitute) or email.

90% of all computer users are completly computer illiterate.

Many bosses simply provide a computer thinking that this is a substitute for hiring good people or training.
In my opinion giving a computer to someone who doesn't know what thy're doing anyway just helps them mess things up quicker.

Many people use their computers instead of their brains. I've heard the phrase the computer says for a poor/wrong result so often I could puke.

Computer power is often so often overlooked by programmers. I hate phoning my bank/credit card company or such and having to give a specific often long winded x digit user ID or some such from memory. Why can't they search on my name/phone number i.e something I can remember. Poor programming.

Ad nauseum....

 

[AIXSPadmin]

You are correct that much computer power is wasted. Again, at the former Fortune 500 company, everyone was so excited because we were getting new desktop 1+ GHZ machines that were replacing 700 MHZ or so machines - that just did Word, Excel, or ran Exceed to connect to the Unix servers! They also kept upgrading the memory from 125 to 256 to 512 on these desktops!

What a waste of money! And yes the software is a waste too, and that can be blamed to parts; company not training the employee, and the vendor putting so much "junk" into the software that will NEVER be used. Anything to justify a new release to sell more of the product!

And yes, more people rely on a computer and trust the results. I 90% of the time still balance my checkbook by hand! Imagine that

Computer are just a tool! People have never really been told that or never learned it. It should be used in conjunction with everything else. A means to an end, not an end in itself.

 

[dilettante]

AIXSPadmin - LOL!

Reminds me of this place where the Cobol/RPG types have the fastest machines, most memory, hugest hard drives, and biggest monitors (mostly 19&quot. They run 640x480 resolution and 99% of the time only use a terminal emulator with 25 lines of 80 chars each!

Sure, they use email, and now and then Word or Visio. Can you imagine Visio at 640x480???

 

[CajunCenturion]

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

Stevehewitt - I'm curious how much data and experience you've acquired over your career upon which to base the claim that the "window clickers" statement is "completely not true". I grant that it may not apply to you, and quite a few others, but as general statement, I think its an accurate assesment.

I would also like to further invesigate guestgulkan assertion that a lot of the "big impact of computers is negative". With respect to the wasted/unused computer power, is wasted power the same as unused power. I would also point out that power being held in reserve, so that its there when you need it, is not necessarily a waste.

How computers are used/not used in the workplace is not the fault of the computer, nor is it the fault of the computer that (according to guestgulkan statistics) 90% of the users are completly computer illiterate - whatever that means.

People were lazy before we had computers, and they are still lazy. Computer hasn't changed that.

What the computer has done is to provide an inanimate object to blame (as opposed to a co-worker, client, contractor, etc) when things go wrong. And that's not the computer's fault. One could even argue (but I'm not trying to), that its positive to provide a blame outlet that is not another person.

<tongue-in-cheek>
Many people use their computers instead of their barins - Assumes that people have brains to begin with. If they didn't have a computer to use, they'd have nothing to use.
</tongue-in-cheek>
Humor aside tho - that's not the computer's fault.

AIXSPadmin has it exactly correct. The computer is just a tool. How that tool is used (or not) is not the tool's fault, and I don't accept the negative connotation attached to it. Case in point: I have a compound mitre saw in the shed. No-one is using it right now (at least I don't think so - if someone is - well that's another issue), but I don't consider it being wasted, and certainly not negative. My wife can only make straight cuts with it - does that mean the saw is having a negative impact? One time she used to cut firewood and dulled the blade. Is that the saw's fault? Is that a negative to be imposed on the saw?

To your question: Computer power is often so often overlooked by programmers. I hate phoning my bank/credit card company or such and having to give a specific often long winded x digit user ID or some such from memory. Why can't they search on my name/phone number i.e something I can remember. Poor programming.
Security -- Because I can remember your name/phone number quite easily as well.
Identification -- Must guarantee uniqueness
Performance -- Don't want to waste computer power having to perform searches on compound keys when a scalar key can be used.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[manarth]

what's wrong with window-clickers?

do you really think the world of computers should be restricted to those with the time / inclination to study IT in depth?

windows / GUIs are designed to provide an easily learnable, preferably intuitive interface. who cares that the ppl using these GUIs are IT illiterate - in that case it's the programmer's job to restrict the damage users can do in their ignorance.


As for &quot;IT engineers&quot; who can't write ms-dos batch tasks, as long as they can (dispite their shortcomings!) do the job they're employed for, I see no problem.

no disrespect to older technology, but bring in the new! It's quicker, simpler (in HCI terms), more accessible, and sometimes you don't have to understand every single feature in order to make it achieve what you want it to achieve.

as for me - I am indeed a windows-clicker...who happens to be quite comfortable scripting dos and programming c, but uses whichever tools I have to achieve a simple efficient solution.

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please give feedback on what works / what doesn't[/li][li]need some help? here's a good place to start: faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Hopefully the statement &quot;It's quicker, simpler ...&quot; was not in reference to Winblows because nothing could be further from the truth in comparison to Unix machines. Need to do anything I can drop to a shell and do anything I need with one command or string a few together to get what I need.

&quot;do you really think the world of computers should be restricted to those with the time / inclination to study IT in depth?&quot; I have no idea in what context this statement means. For a home user balancing their checkbook or playing a game or surfing the internet, NO. To business and government and education, YES.