In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:26:51 +0100
<2386723.OXZrfvf5qs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Working for The Man? Advice to a young programmer
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Many programmers, especially those who write for virtual machines such as
> | Java or the .NET CLI, think that low-level machine architecture and
> | processor instructions don't matter anymore. That's still not true, and I
> | don't believe it ever will be.
Anybody who thinks that needs to think of a modern car.
Yes, it might have a pretty body, nice powerful engine,
bright headlights, capacious trunk, comfy seats (not to
be confused with comfy chairs, dead parrots, vicious keep
left signs, matchboxes, or crunchy frogs), antilock braking
system, heated side mirrors, windshield wipers, automatic
cruise control, anti-cartheft system, fuel injection,
electronic dashboard, moon roof, GPS tracking device,
flamethrower, missile launch system, bulletproof glass,
radio jamming device, etc. etc.
But how does it actually drive around on the road?
Granted, in the case of the modern PC there's some
interesting games it plays -- at one point someone stated
(or claimed) that the Pentium actually emulated x86
instructions using some sort of microcode, for example,
and the Sweet16 emulator on the Apple ][ is legendary
(if not all that well known), but hardly the last such --
especially since VB is used on so many computers, and
Python, Ruby, or PHP on the Linux side. At the end of
the day, it's which transistors switch, and which don't.
However, just before that, there's machine instructions
-- about the last place a programmer/developer/hacker guy
can get at things before the microprocessor swallows them
up forever.
Just a thought.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | It is very important to be able to show your next employer what
> | you have done, and what you are able to do in a team. Free
> | software/open source is the ideal way of doing this. It's not
> | just a better way of producing software, it's actually better
> | for the reputation of the people creating it. One of the first
> | things I do when evaluating someone is to look for samples of
> | their code out there on the Internet. If you work on proprietary
> | software you can't show anyone anything, and real code speaks
> | louder than any list of projects you claim to have worked on.
> `----
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-6173644.html
>
> This was discussed in COLA quite recently.
And this...surprises you? :-)
It's all communication nowadays anyway. Time was when
computers were thought of as giant calculating machines
-- and ENIAC, if memory serves, was first brought online
to do ballistics calculations. (Perhaps someone thought
of a need during World War II -- and then the war ended.
Ah well, such is life; fortunately the ME-262 was never
widely deployed, or else we'd probably have been fighting
until 1950. But I digress.)
Nowadays, computers control almost everything from the
magnetron tube in one's microwave to the traffic signals
in major metropolitan areas to the trains in a number of
said areas (BART in SF, for one) to digital switches in the
phone system, the packet routers on the Internet, and of
course most of the bits on one's desktop, at least the ones
actually inside the (usually) gray, black, or beige case.
Even the modern monitor has a computer inside it --
usually visible when pressing the brightness or contrast
control buttons.
And then there's biomedical applications such as
pacemakers, and automotive applications -- one can, in many
cars, switch out the ROM, for example, which presumably
contains computer instructions and/or threshold tables.
But what's really happening? Transistors are throwing charges
or current around. :-) If they don't communicate properly,
or the control software doesn't get done quite right, things
happen suboptimally, if they happen at all.
(My personal favorite: a lockup caused by two communications
nodes waiting for the other to transmit. Even Godot wouldn't
be able to help much there.)
And at a human level, while I would hope it's what one
knows, one does have to know which piece of machinery
communicates where when. That might be construed as "who",
were one sufficiently anthropomorphic or has read a little
too many of various robot stories such as those authored by
Isaac Asimov or Lester Del Rey :-).
Were either alive today, they'd probably be amazed; even
Gene Roddenberry might not have contemplated that his
wallside communicators would have been so passe by now.
(To Star Trek's credit, they did replace same by a thin
breast-worn unit in The Next Generation, and Gene, or
somebody, did put a bug on occasion in Nichelle Nichol's
and Leonard Nimoy's ear -- the TV predecessor to what
is now a Bluetooth earpiece, and probably not nearly
as comfortable.)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Murphy was an optimist.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
