Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#2minor disagreement: replace "should" with "could". In a world with languages, frameworks and libraries up the wazoo, things are rarely so absolute.
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#3minor disagreement: replace "should" with "could". In a world with languages, frameworks and libraries up the wazoo, things are rarely so absolute.
Frameworks aren't a replacement for proper program design.
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#4minor disagreement: replace "should" with "could". In a world with languages, frameworks and libraries up the wazoo, things are rarely so absolute.
Frameworks aren't a replacement for proper program design.
I wasn't saying there was; only that there is more than one way to approach the problem, and language like "should" infers that there is some absolute way.
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frameworks aren't a replacement for proper program design.
I wasn't saying there was; only that there is more than one way to approach the problem, and language like "should" infers that there is some absolute way.
"Should be more than coding" does not infer there is a specific absolute way to do a thing, rather, that if that someone is not doing more than coding they are missing a few critical aspects of the thing they are doing.
Basically what people in general get at is this: programming in the abstract context is about model or "theory" building. Programming is the implementation of this model.
Now, if one does not do anything else but code, he or she is definetly missing on supporting activities that would make it easier to a) discuss the work in a context without the team b) extend the work beyond the next few sprints c) enable the maintentance of the work. Etc.
One can take the stand that the frameworks have taken all the theory building and maintenace workload under their wings but I am highly sceptical of this view.
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#6minor disagreement: replace "should" with "could". In a world with languages, frameworks and libraries up the wazoo, things are rarely so absolute.
The existence of multiple languages, frameworks, and libraries does not reduce the importance of problem analysis and solution design, the terms i would use for the two pieces beyond coding in the summary of the theme of Lamport's talk. So, no, I don't think the "should" is incorrect, nor do I think the facts you point to are relevant to Lamport's thesis, except perhaps that they reinforce it as to solution design (determining how to solve the problem), since they expand the set of options that should be considered.
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#7minor disagreement: replace "should" with "could". In a world with languages, frameworks and libraries up the wazoo, things are rarely so absolute.
The existence of multiple languages, frameworks, and libraries does not reduce the importance of problem analysis and solution design, the terms i would use for the two pieces beyond coding in the summary of the theme of Lamport's talk. So, no, I don't think the "should" is incorrect, nor do I think the facts you point to are relevant to Lamport's thesis, except perhaps that they reinforce it as to solution design (d…
TBH, maybe I've read too many "you shouldn't do X" "you should use X" posts that the word ends up snagging me whenever I see it.
Re: Programnming should be more than coding (Leslie Lamport at Stanford)
#8Video is now available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QsTfL-uXd8
The link on the page is not working.