

Return of the Real Programmer - chuckm
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/return-of-the-real-programmer/

======
Hexstream
I'm always dubious of rants like this about hypothetical really horrible
programmers. Even if they exist, I don't see what's the point of talking about
them since they're so unproductive that they're certainly irrelevant and can
be safely ignored. Once in a while you might have to maintain their
unmaintainable code but such is life.

I always get the feeling the ranter is just an average programmer who want to
remind everyone how they're so much better than the worst. I can't imagine a
really great programmer wasting his time doing a rant like this about
programmers who get everything wrong consistently.

The worst offender in this category is probably Jeff Atwood.

~~~
mechanical_fish
These rants are pointless. Divisive, corrosive. Making up names and
stereotypes to apply to other people.

Yes, we're surrounded by a sea of bad code. Much of which comes from bad
programmers, many of whom will never accept that they are bad. That's a banal
observation.

What isn't banal? An example of a beautiful thing. There are lots of problems
that are still awaiting their beautiful solution. If you want to promote
beautiful code, publish some. Or, find some code you think is un-beautiful,
improve it, and publish that. Teach people how to make such things. _Show,
don't tell._

It doesn't matter what the personalities of other programmers are like. What
matters is the product. Critique the product.

------
barry-cotter
Summary: Real programmers (not complimentary) don't document, don't maintain,
always do things the hard way because that's the only way to get bragging
rights, object strenuously to giving up even a little freedom in order to make
it harder to make mistakes. Oldskool RPs programmed in hard things like
assembler, which at least forced you to know your way around algorithims and
memory management. The new breed do not have that saving grace.

Commentary: It sounds like the difference between a Real Programmer and a good
hacker is skill, documentation and math/data structures/algorithims. I can't
remember which essay it was in but pg recommended always doing things the hard
way because if it even occured to you to do things the hard way, it's probably
because you can see a benefit from it already, and it makes it _much_ harder
for competitors to catch up if you do this consistently.

~~~
rs
Moreover, I think the article's definition of Real programmers somehow do not
work well in a team

------
jballanc
I'm sorry, but there are too many exceptions to the rule this author is trying
to prove for me to buy into his point. He contends that "Real" (i.e. overtly
macho) programmers don't maintain code and don't accept the "wisdom" of static
typing because they don't care about the mundane and boring tasks of ensuring
code works \---but--- they do write unit tests because that, somehow, shows
that they are manly and daring and _not_ that they care about the mundane and
boring tasks of ensuring code works?

Huh? This is the second blatantly anti-Ruby post from this blog in less than a
week. If I didn't know any better, I'd say they had an axe to grind...

------
ruslan
The author seems never read the classics -- The Story Of Mel, Real Programmer,
from Jargon File. <http://www.ccil.org/jargon/jargon_49.html#SEC56>

Real Programmers write in FORTRAN.

Maybe they do now, in this decadent era of Lite beer, hand calculators, and
"user-friendly" software but back in the Good Old Days, when the term
"software" sounded funny and Real Computers were made out of drums and vacuum
tubes, Real Programmers wrote in machine code...

Year 1983.

------
varjag
The original "Real Programmers don't use Pascal" was quite obviously an ironic
piece. Debunking humorous writings is somehow never humorous :)

------
smoof-ra
If you think it's even remotely possible that a Real Programmer would use
ruby, you have entirely missed the point.

