|
|
|
|
|
|
by discreteevent
4763 days ago
|
|
|
" I would prefer
to drive over a bridge built by an engineer who
learned all those difficult equations, material
properties, and buildings codes as opposed to a
high school kid with a few physics courses under
his belt." I think this kind of analogy is misleading. Those things are more like the equivalent of understanding data structures and algorithms, performance estimation, being able to use a profiler effectively etc. Civil eng is very conservative in terms of the kinds of language and graphics that can be used to express a design. Anyone doing the equivalent of currying or macros (making up ones own language) would be thrown out. I would think its probable that when programming is as old as engineering its modes of expression will be similarly limited/standardised. |
|
|
I would argue that programming is far more specific in terms of the kind of language can be used too. In fact each such language tends to be described in exhaustive specs.
> Anyone doing the equivalent of currying or macros (making up ones own language) would be thrown out. I would think its probable that when programming is as old as engineering its modes of expression will be similarly limited/standardised.
Both things are very broad when it comes to what can be made using those languages. A civil engineer may use his language to build a house, a sky-rise, and a nuclear power plant. Each of those will have different complexities, and a different requirements of knowledge and qualifications. In fact I imagine the Engineer working on the latter will know how to do a lot of things that the Engineer who works on the former would consider to be akin in complexity to currying and macros.
The situation is the same in programming. Some people may be working on projects currying, macros, and other techniques are a major benefit. These are after all extremely powerful tools. Just like with the Civil Engineer, the challenge is knowing how to use them properly.