Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Sep 2012 21:51 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "When I started writing programs in the late 80s it was pretty primitive and required a lot of study and skill. I was a young kid doing this stuff, the adults at that time had it even worse and some of them did start in the punch card era. This was back when programmers really had to earn their keep, and us newer generations are losing appreciation for that. A generation or two ago they may have been been better coders than us. More importantly they were better craftsmen, and we need to think about that." I'm no programmer, but I do understand that the current crop of programmers could learn a whole lot from older generations. I'm not going to burn my fingers on if they were better programmers or not, but I do believe they have a far greater understanding of the actual workings of a computer. Does the average 'app developer' have any clue whatsoever about low-level code, let alone something like assembly?
Thread beginning with comment 536926
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The use of tools is what matters
by abdavidson on Fri 28th Sep 2012 23:56 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

The stone age people who used moss, leaves and berries to create paint on cave walls that still this day we can tell were supposed to be various animals were extremely skilled at using the absolute most primitive low level tools possible to produce something that isn't great art by current standards but is still instantly recognisable.

Were they better than the guy thousands of years hence who can use bic pens, the culmination in many many years of writing evolution, to draw near photorealistic renderings of people and animals?

Then there are the guys using those modern tools, the bic pens, like me who can draw a pretty mean stick man and that's about it.

The point I'm making and my feeling about it is that the tool is irrelevant: what you produce in relation to what is possible to produce, is.

Reply Score: 10

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

A former housemate of mine taught drawing at a major university. He told me that that photorealistic drawing and painting takes very little skill. It is actually far harder to draw high quality abstract art.

The cave painters at Lascaux were far more talented artists than some guy mdern guy drawing with a ballpoint.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It is actually far harder to draw high quality abstract art.


Harder != better.

The cave painters at Lascaux were far more talented artists than some guy mdern guy drawing with a ballpoint.


For all we know they could be equivalent.

Reply Parent Score: 5

joehms22 Member since:
2011-08-01


The point I'm making and my feeling about it is that the tool is irrelevant: what you produce in relation to what is possible to produce, is.


I feel that last sentence is dead on, and what I was feeling throughout reading the article but couldn't put in to words, the best I could do was an analogy:

Just because Darwin was "first" in describing evolution, doesn't make him a better biologist than Rosalind Franklin for discovering DNA, or Boyer and Cohen who were the first to modify it in a living organism.

We think everyone in the past was great, but that is because all of the mediocres are lost to history; like all the kids that copied code from computer magazines and painstakingly, manually, "pasted" in to their BASIC machines. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 6

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Rosalind Franklin most definitively did not "discover" DNA.

Reply Parent Score: 2