4 ms·

They really didn't. I'm going to be frank, in the 80s, programmers sucked compared to today's programmers. If you took an 80s programmer and time shifted him t

They really didn't. I'm going to be frank, in the 80s, programmers sucked compared to today's programmers. If you took an 80s programmer and time shifted him to today, he'd look like he had no experience and really struggle until he'd spent a lot of time learning new stuff. You've grown up with software engineering in the last 10 years. Have you honestly not seen the sea change in that time? Be it programming languages that have shifted dramatically from the original OO in Java/C# 1.0, javascript inspiring massive changes in those languages with anonymous types, closures, etc., with unit testing, TDD. There's so much that's changed, so, so much I can't even think of half of it. I said it below, who today passes ByRef? Or uses a global variable? 10 years ago that was common. Just 10 years ago! The field is moving so amazingly rapidly! And one of the real things I've seen, something you can't describe unless you've got experience, which I've no doubt you have, is that methods now actually do what they say they do. They didn't used to. They used to do other things, and touch global vars, and get passed in variables to muck around with. And on top of that, people now seem to actually understand OO. Not just blindly recanting what polymorphic means, they can actually split up and create objects sensibly. They really couldn't do it very well 10 years ago. No-one really understood it, it sounded like a good idea but only a tiny percentage actually understood what it really meant. And yet you think studies done back then, using techniques that would get people fired today, are worth referencing? LOOK at the dates in the parent post. 1986? No Java, no Javascript, no Python, no Ruby, no C#. But COBOL had just released an update! You'd better watch out for those GOTOs! I honestly am perplexed that you can even start to think those studies are still relevant today.

akkartik 13y ago
The grandparent wasn't claiming that the 80s were as good as us, he's claiming that just the passage of time is a bad reason to forget a lesson. You mention a long list of rules and practices, but I'm not sure they've had as unadulterated a benefit as you think. Replacing GOTOs with objects has more often than not resulted in a more structured form of spaghetti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_problem, for example) that's no better. There were already people programming with closures and anonymous types, there's just more of them now. That's probably better, but not night-and-day. Lots of people still write spaghetti with closures and callbacks. Arguing about whether the past is better or the present is better is a waste of time. We're just trading generalities at this point about a topic that permits no easy generalization. One way I've been trying to avoid this trap is with the mantra (generality :), "languages don't suck, codebases suck." It forces me to remember that it's possible to write good code in a bad language, and (often) to write bad code in a good language. Intangible abilities, domain properties, accidental design decisions and cultural factors have a huge effect that it's easy to ignore and underestimate by clinging to reassuring rules about the parts that seem more tangible. But you won't grow until you try to stare into the abyss. (Edit: By 'you' in that last sentence I didn't mean you specifically, mattmanser.)
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > he's claiming that just the passage of time is a bad reason to forget a lesson. No, I wasn't claiming that at all. It wasn't the passage of time, but what occurred during that passage of time that mattered. mattmanser goes into more detail.
  - akkartik 13y ago
    By grandparent I meant gruseom.

akkartik 13y ago

The grandparent wasn't claiming that the 80s were as good as us, he's claiming that just the passage of time is a bad reason to forget a lesson. You mention a long list of rules and practices, but I'm not sure they've had as unadulterated a benefit as you think. Replacing GOTOs with objects has more often than not resulted in a more structured form of spaghetti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_problem, for example) that's no better. There were already people programming with closures and anonymous types, there's just more of them now. That's probably better, but not night-and-day. Lots of people still write spaghetti with closures and callbacks. Arguing about whether the past is better or the present is better is a waste of time. We're just trading generalities at this point about a topic that permits no easy generalization. One way I've been trying to avoid this trap is with the mantra (generality :), "languages don't suck, codebases suck." It forces me to remember that it's possible to write good code in a bad language, and (often) to write bad code in a good language. Intangible abilities, domain properties, accidental design decisions and cultural factors have a huge effect that it's easy to ignore and underestimate by clinging to reassuring rules about the parts that seem more tangible. But you won't grow until you try to stare into the abyss. (Edit: By 'you' in that last sentence I didn't mean you specifically, mattmanser.)

jasonlotito 13y ago
> he's claiming that just the passage of time is a bad reason to forget a lesson. No, I wasn't claiming that at all. It wasn't the passage of time, but what occurred during that passage of time that mattered. mattmanser goes into more detail.
- akkartik 13y ago
  By grandparent I meant gruseom.