Re: brief survey
|From:||Cian Ross <cian@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, September 18, 2005, 19:21|
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 14:08, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Cian Ross <cian@...>:
> > On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 05:44, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > Quoting Cian Ross <cian@...>:
> > >
> > > > Only if you accept the term "computer scientist." (I prefer "software
> > > > engineer" or just "programmer.")
> > >
> > > Hm. Were I'm from, 'computer scientist' and 'programmer' are supposed not
> > to be
> > > synonymous. The later is supposed to be a fairly mundane sort of fellow,
> > who
> > > just codes, and the former a more lofty individual whose competence
> > includes
> > > everything pertaining to computers.
> > So the programmers are the ones who make the honest livings? :)
> I'm not sure what's dishonest about having a knowledge of computers that goes
> beyond coding ...
It's a joke.... I write code for a living but I definitely know things
beyond that--and from where I sit it's impossible to know _what_ to
write if one only knows how to code.
> > > Of course, as a technical physicist, I consider both categories to be
> > > insufferable geeks. ;)
> > Out of curiosity, why would geeks be insufferable?
> You'd probably be better off asking *them* why they're being insufferable. :p
As I don't see the insufferability in the first place, it's hard to know
what to ask.
> > And why would those
> > of us who know we're geeks put much stock in the opinions of those of us
> > who use what we build and then call us insufferable, or whatever else?
> I'm not paid to care whether geeks put much or any stock in my opinions. :p
I don't think anyone here asserted that you are?