5 ms·
It can be compared. Both require to mentally navigate certain set of constraints and rules and build up a mental model of the domain problem, after which you pr
by jevgeni 11y ago
It can be compared. Both require to mentally navigate certain set of constraints and rules and build up a mental model of the domain problem, after which you produce a concrete result. In programming it's software, in law practice it's mostly a written consultation or a decision.
The point I'm making, is that both are mental endeavours. Programming isn't constantly typing at a desk, hitting TAB, and letting the IDE do the rest, but actually solving the problem in your head.
If I quit a programming job, that doesn't mean I stop thinking on programming problems. Same goes for law.
The problem that the author is describing, is that she has reached the limits of her profession to such an extent, that even thinking on (most) programming problems isn't interesting to her anymore. Which is a sad thing.
- jerf 11y ago"Practicing law" specifically means performing legal services, in the real law system, for a real client. It is a term of art, not a generic English use of the term. Practicing programming has a much fuzzier meaning, because it is the generic English term. My point is your snark doesn't hold, because "practicing law" is fundamentally a different thing from "practicing" programming.
- jevgeni 11y agoJust because my initial comment was a short sentence, doesn't mean it was snarky; like this one. And although I agree with your definition within a professional legal context, that context is irrelevant to the discussion, since we are discussing a person's personal relationship to the discipline.