Real Computer Scientists Don’t Write Specs

Real Computer Scientists don't write code.  They occasionally tinker with
"programming systems", but those are so high level that they hardly count,
and rarely count accurately.  (Precision is for applications)
 
Real Computer Scientists don't comment their code.  The identifiers are so
long they can't afford the disk space
 
Real Computer Scientists don't write the user interfaces; they merely argue
over what they should look like
 
Real Computer Scientists don't eat quiche.  They shun Szechuan food since the
hackers discovered it.  Many Real Computer Scientists consider eating an
implementation detail
 
If it doesn't have a programming environment complete with interface
debugger, structure editor, and extensive cross-module checking, Real
Computer Scientists won't be seen tinkering with it.  They may have to use it
to balance their checkbooks, as their own systems can't
 
Real Computer Scientists don't program in assembler.  They don't write in
anything less portable than a Number Two pencil
 
Real Computer Scientists don't debug programs; they dynamically modify them.
This is safer, since no one has invented a way to do anything dynamic
to FORTRAN, COBOL, or BASIC
 
Real Computer Scientists like C's structured constructs, but they are
suspicious of it because it is compiled.  (Only batch freaks and efficiency
weirdos bother with compilers)
 
Real Computer Scientists play Go.  They have nothing against the concept of
mountain climbing, but the actual climbing is an implementation detail best
left to programmers
 
Real Computer Scientists admire ADA for its overwhelming aesthetic value, but
they find it difficult to actually program in, as it is much too large to
implement.  Most computer scientists don't notice this because they are still
arguing over what else to add to ADA
 
Real Computer Scientists work from 5pm to 9am because that's the only time
they can get the 8 megabytes of main memory they need to edit specs.  (Real
work starts around 2am when enough MIPS are free for their dynamic systems.)
Real Computer Scientists find it hard to share 3081s when they are doing
"real" work
 
Real Computer Scientists only write specs for languages that might run on
future hardware.  Nobody trusts them to write specs for anything homo sapiens
will ever be able to fit on a single planet
 
Real Computer Scientists like planning their own environments to use
bit-mapped graphics.  Bit-mapped graphics is great because no one can afford
it, so their systems can be experimental
 
Real Computer Scientists regret the existence of PL/1, PASCAL, and LISP.  ADA
is getting there, but it still allows people to make mistakes
 
Real Computer Scientists love the concept of users.  Users are always real
impressed by the stuff computer scientists are talking about; it sure sounds
better than the stuff they are being forced to use now
 
Real Computer Scientists despise the idea of actual hardware.  Hardware has
limitations; software doesn't.  It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O
 
Real Computer Scientists love conventions.  No one is expected to lug a 3081
attached to a bit-map screen to a convention, so no one will ever know how
slow their system runs
 
Real Computer Scientists don't run IBM hardware.  If someone will fix it when
it breaks, it's not spacey enough

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *