Great spew actually!
I don't even have an associates, nor have I even quarter of the skillset that you and the others mentioned in your post have. But since before the PC first hit the market I've had to brutally expirience OS and language evolution. No matter what OS or language the basic problems and resolutions have been essentially the same. Get the data from here to there without blowing up the program or crashing the system -- faster, better.
After 20 years it's finally starting to finacially pay off, but as I'm twice as old as most of my co-workers I definately would finish college had I to do it again.
But I'm off on a child process, back in the main of your spew, you claim that The Renaissance man is dead. IMHO I think we are just now entering a period where this may soon change. Looking around the work place I find highly qualified super-specialist that have to spend most of there time coordinating and meeting with other specialists so they can get back to their specialty and actually accomplish something. Eventually the inneficiency will be understood by the wonderfull management specialists of the world.
Speaking of which (management types), these folks have more of an influence on "Why software sucks" than you may be realizing. The 're-invention of the wheel' syndrome usually comes from the rewarding of new novel solutions that have all the right buzzwords. It is easier for management types to understand 'buying' new technology than to consider how it integrates into what they've already invested in. How could they? There aren't specialist in that!
You are very right though, The answer to a 'why' over a 'how' usually yields reusable thought components. It's more mentally OO. and the resultant understanding can usually be inherited into new and novel problems that may not even have anything to do with programming.
coreolynIn reply to Re: Why, not How
by coreolyn
in thread Why, not How
by Ovid
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |