Info on being a Systems Programmer/Analyst?
Andrew Meckler
John L Wilson, CDP <crsr...@dialnet.net> wrote in article
<54ug8t$h...@news.dialnet.net>...
> Jeff Klug <jeffre...@autodesk.com> wrote:
>
> >Stuart....@Chrysalis.org wrote:
> >>
> >> I am currently a Junior in High School and have been
> >> considering becoming a Systems Programmer/Analyst. I've read books
> >> about it but I would like to get some first hand information from real
> >> people with experience in this field. General information, including
> >> job responsibilities, education needed, and salary would be
> >> appreciated. I am specifically wondering about how much math I would
> >> need. I don't really like to do math but I am fairly good at it.
> >> Many people say that to be a programmer, you need a lot of math
> >> skills, but I wonder if that is true. I'd like to know specifically
> >> what type of math is used and how it is applied.
> >>
> >> Anyone who has any information that might be useful to me, no
> >> matter how little, please respond. I will greatly appreciate your
> >> sharing your experience and knowledge with me.
> >>
> >> Sincere thanks,
> >> Stuart Johnston
>
>
> > My best advice to you would be to get programming experience while
you're
> >going to school, through college internships, or possibly high-school
career
> >"mirroring" programs where you would shadow a professional in his/her
workplace.
> >This is EXTREMELY valuable when you are eventually job-searching, as it
gives you
> >a big advantage over your non-experienced competition. (You may even
beat out a
> >degreed competitor even before you graduate!) It also gives you a
chance to use
> >your education in a practical hands-on setting. It may delay your
graduation,
> >but it will be worth it, trust me.
>
> > As far as the math question, you need to understand the theory of
> >high-level math such as calculus, not so much for number-crunching, but
to be
> >able to conceptualize the mathmatical/logical relationships between
"things".
> >The techniques you learn in high-level problem solving are invaluable.
>
> > Salaries will change dramatically by the time you get out of college,
so
> >these numbers won't mean too much to you then, but as an ENTRY LEVEL
programmer,
> >expect $25,000-$35,000. One to two years of hard experience and you can
probably
> >ask for $45,000.
>
> > Not everyone is willing to pay this much, though. There are tons of
> >companies out there looking for fresh programmers to exploit, so pick
carefully
> >who you want to work for and don't sell yourself short. Benefits and
work
> >environment, as well as location are very important. Cost of living is
a big
> >factor in how much you "really" make. Finding a good job may take a
while... a
> >good rule of thumb is to expect a month for each $10,000 of income.
>
> > I hope this information helps.
>
> I can't agree more that the best way to get ahead of the others is to
> get OTJ experience through a co-operative education program through
> your school. Although computers are a lot more wide-spread and
> accessible now than when I went to school, the co-op program gave me
> insight into the stuff going on in the classroom that actually made
> the computer classes fun. Suddenly, it wasn't theory being taught like
> the first three semesters of collegiate life. And I had a standing
> offer from the company that had taken me under their wing even though
> the was a company-wide hiring freeze when I graduated.
>
> And you get the bonus of finding out if it's your cup of tea long
> before you've invested 4-5 years of your life. It added 1 more year to
> my college time, but I wouldn't trade that extra year for anything.
>
> Hope this testimonial helps. Good luck!
>
In addition to the above, I would like to put my 2 cents in. In my
opinion, grades are very important. I was VERY competitve for
people to get jobs at Intel, HP, Microsoft, etc. At my college, all
three of these companies were recruiting on campus and wouldn't
even consider you if you didn't have a GPA of 3.2 or over. As far
as math goes, well I don't consider it crutial unless you are going
to be going into math intensive areas of programming like graphics.
But if you are going to get a computer science degree in college,
extensive math is pretty much unavoidable.
I can't agree more with internships and co-ops. These are critical if
you want to land a good job. Can't say much more about this, its
been said above.
As far as salaries and experience go, it really depends on the
company. A college degree is a requirement and typically they
want people with a bachelors degree in computer science. For
a bachelors degree salaries usually range from 28,000 to 35,000.
40,000 if you are really lucky. With a masters degree they were
going around mid 40s. After some experience, if you show you
can do the job, your salary will move up rapidly.
The type of responsibilities you can expect really range from job
to job. Generally however, you can expect to do bug fixing or
smaller programming tasks for the first year or so. Then once
you get your feet wet and you begin to learn the company and
what they are all about, you will probably start to get larger
programming tasks. Eventually you will start managing a team
of programmers, etc. My advice here is to learn analysis and design
and well as programming. Anybody can program stuff. The analysis
and design is the elegant portion of programming that is much more
difficult especially in large projects and it is much more critical.
A good design will allow for easy code reuse and modifications in the
future.
My last word of advice, make yourself standout compared to
everybody else. That is the key to landing a good job.
John L Wilson, CDP
Paul Picard
The coop way to get some experience is essential. A word of caution
don't let the coop people pressure you in taking positions where you
won't learn a thing. I graduated a few years ago with the top marks of
my class. I earned an award of merit for outstanding achiements in
computer studies. I had and extensive experience at communicating with
people in wide variety of context. Unfortunately I did let the coop
people pressure me into accepting positions without checking carefully
the learning potential. I ended doing four coop dead end work
experiences.
I was a high-school teacher before taking that three year coop computer
program at a local college. When I tried to integrate the market as a
computer junior programmer or any entry level position I just could not
make it because I did not have any relevant work experience.
Don't let the official pious messages that employers want mostly good
learning ability and exceptional communication skill. I have those to an
exceptional level to no avail. The employers don't want someone who
already did the exact tasks that they want you to do. They would like
you to be productive within half an hour of getting into their office.
Go the coop way but interview the potential employers about what you can
expect to learn while you work there.
Paul Picard ppi...@ciao.trail.bc.ca
Graham Keellings
I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
You guys all seem to be American, so maybe its a college requirement over
there. I got my degree in Great Britain, way back in 1980 & it certainly
wasn't necessary then. I also spent 7 years contracting in the states &
didn't notice a math requirement. Obviously, there will be some narrowly
specified positions which do require math, but there are greatly in the
minority. If you don't like math, don't take any Fortran courses & you'll
never qualify for math positions :-)
for me, the great advantage is travelling. I've worked in britain, the states,
germany & holland and am hoping for either australia or singapore/malaysia
next. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I look on it as paid vacation.
Several of my american colleagues who had always wanted to see europe came
over to germany to work & spend every weekend exploring europe. Work permits
are a slight problem, but not a major hurdle.
If you want to know whether this is the sort of work you want to do, a good
pointer is if you like puzzle solving. Doesn't matter whether jigsaw-,
crossword- or whatever, if you like worrying away at a problem, bit by bit
until you fully understand it, you're a likely candidate. If you find that
you often start new hobbies, projects, whatever & leave them 1/2 done, this
may not be the field for you.
just my fifth of a dime's worth ...
Graham :-)
Julian Pardoe
Graham Keellings wrote:
>
> I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
> disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
The trouble with all this is the difference between what employers
want and what they think they want! I did economics for my first degree
and had the devil of a time finding a job: almost everyone wanted people
studying physics or maths. (This was in the 1970s so compsci graduates
were rare.) Of the five my eventual employer recuited the best was a woman
who'd studied French and German. So much for maths and physics! The next
year I helped train the new graduates: there was one so dumb they had to
sack him after a week. He'd studied "ship science", surely an almost ideal
subject for those with the physics/maths prejudice.
Employers think they want someone with exactly such-and-such a skill set
(people who will be productive half an hour after walking through the
door as some one put it). Since, in my experience, most employers are
chaotic and disorganized what they really want is someone who is smart
and adaptable--half an hour after you walk in the door what's on your CV
and what you were recrited for become irelevent!
Of course, you can't necessarily blame the guys doing the recruiting:
the "nobody ever got sacked for buying IBM" principle applies. If you hire
the French/German graduate and she's good no one's going to remember what
was on her CV. If she's no good it'll be "What the *** did you hire some
*** who knows French for!!" and there'll be no defending yourself.
To be positive: what you need are experience and confidence. The former
will bring you the latter! Lose no chance to do some work, preferably
paid. The best places to find it are small local companies (where the guy
who gives you the job answers to himself) and your own department (asuming
you're are at college); the best way to find it is through contacts.
It's much harder to judge someone's intelligence and adaptability than it
is to count their qualifications so personal knowledge/recommendation
counts for a lot.
-- jP --
John Currier
Just remember that whatever salaries are thrown around out here are
based on salaries in specific areas of the country/world. 1000 dollars
a month also will rent you a decent house in central Florida while it won't
get you much more than a bedroom in San Francisco.
Just my 2 cents,
Michael Grunder
Mike Copeland wrote:
>
> > I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
> > disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
> >
> > there. I got my degree in Great Britain, way back in 1980 & it certainly
> > wasn't necessary then. I also spent 7 years contracting in the states &
> > didn't notice a math requirement. Obviously, there will be some narrowly
> > specified positions which do require math, but there are greatly in the
> > minority. If you don't like math, don't take any Fortran courses & you'll
> > never qualify for math positions :-)
>
> Whereas "math" and a "scientific mind" were originally thought to be
> requirements for computer programming (the earliest work was done
> mostly by scientists and mathemeticians), the amount of math-oriented
> programming which is now actually done is miniscule. The only
> relevant "connection" is the "logic thinking" which is needed to solve
> problems - which is essentially what computer programmers really do.
> So, regardless of one's technical background, a strong interest in and
> ability to solve problems in a logical way (and the willingness and
> introspecion to deal with errors one creates, of course) are the real
> keys to performing the work. There are many other, more subjective,
> things, too: communication skills, ability to work with people, general
> education, and a desire for perpetual improvement and personal growth
> (it's anything but a stagnant career).
I'm not so sure. True, you dont need differential equations for run of
the mill programming jobs, but I would say that at least algebra should
be known. It is like that age old question in high school "when am I
ever going to use this?" for the majority of students (especially these
days) they never will (at least not in their job). However, it gives a
basis for more important problem solving skills. I will take a
programmer that can master calculus over one that has had no math any
day. Does the average programmer use calculus every day? No. Does it
make him a better programmer? Maybe. Are those (on average) that have
completed calculus and other high level courses (physics for example)
more competent and better at solving problems. Yes.
Just my oppinion though.
One note... I got a D in spelling in the 4th grade (can you tell? :))
but flew through all the upper division Physics and Math cources... what
does that say?
-Michael
codem...@charlie.cns.iit.edu
Mike Copeland <mrc...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
>> disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
>>
as a professional programmer with interests outside my current area of
employment - i have to vote NO to all this math hooey. many
programming tasks don't require math skills, but optomizing a 3d game
engine (out side of PHIGS V and the rest of the standards) is a lot
easier if you've had some exposure to vector calculus (ie understand
the concepts behind what you're coding).
the same is true for most moderate to complex scientific programming
tasks. most good programmers could probably work out almost any
problem in code -- or by copying some existing standard, but if you
want to really create anything, its helps to understand what 'better'
means.
Mike Copeland
> I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
> disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
>
Graeme Donald
It has been interesting reading all the threads on the above subject.
As a someone who is doing a Masters, I thought I would put my bit in.
Throughout the course there has been a heavy element in Maths. I am sure it is just to
get you thinking on a logical manner (espeacilly with computer science and programming).
However, I feel my maths is at a reasonably level and I am not sure if it helps me when I
am learning how to program in some language.
BTW where is the best place to be looking for jobs these days?????
Graeme
Jay Cole
Graham Keellings <gra...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
>disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
>You guys all seem to be American, so maybe its a college requirement over
>there. I got my degree in Great Britain, way back in 1980 & it certainly
>wasn't necessary then. I also spent 7 years contracting in the states &
>didn't notice a math requirement. Obviously, there will be some narrowly
>specified positions which do require math, but there are greatly in the
>minority. If you don't like math, don't take any Fortran courses & you'll
>never qualify for math positions :-)
Actually, in college I found two types of programmers, the Data
Processing type folks and the Computer Science type folks. Don't read
anything into the titles, these were simply the headers for our CS
cirriculum options. The DP types did not have to have much math, but
the CS had several upper level classes.
Personally, I think the math opens up many other job opportunities to
you that you wouldn't have without it. In addition, a good
fundamental background in discrete math as well as calculus and
numeric analysis allows you to design better/more-efficient software.
Instead of programming and testing theories on algorithms, you can
mathematically look at the O() notation and calculate how efficient
your new algorithm is.
>for me, the great advantage is travelling. I've worked in britain, the states,
>germany & holland and am hoping for either australia or singapore/malaysia
>next. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I look on it as paid vacation.
>Several of my american colleagues who had always wanted to see europe came
>over to germany to work & spend every weekend exploring europe. Work permits
>are a slight problem, but not a major hurdle.
When I recruit programmers, I either look for a strong practical
background or a strong mathematical background. I find that EE's and
Math/CS majors tend to make the best problem solvers. I also have to
rank the self-taught way up there as to programming efficieny.
>If you want to know whether this is the sort of work you want to do, a good
>pointer is if you like puzzle solving. Doesn't matter whether jigsaw-,
>crossword- or whatever, if you like worrying away at a problem, bit by bit
>until you fully understand it, you're a likely candidate. If you find that
>you often start new hobbies, projects, whatever & leave them 1/2 done, this
>may not be the field for you.
Boy, I gotta agree with this statement. The last 10-20% of the
project is the most grueling and often you don't accomplish much in
the way of coding. Polishing a project to bring to market is quite
an undertaking and if you give up easily, your right, this IS NOT the
field for you.
Jay Cole
Ken Walter
In message <553sov$j...@camel4.mindspring.com> - jay...@bgn.mindspring.com
(Jay Cole) writes:
:>
:>Graham Keellings <gra...@pobox.com> wrote:
:>
[...]
:>Personally, I think the math opens up many other job opportunities to
:>you that you wouldn't have without it. In addition, a good
:>fundamental background in discrete math as well as calculus and
:>numeric analysis allows you to design better/more-efficient software.
:>Instead of programming and testing theories on algorithms, you can
:>mathematically look at the O() notation and calculate how efficient
:>your new algorithm is.
Right, look at Knuth's Art of Computer Programming volumes to see the
kind of math that may come in handy. Just knowing whats is in the volumes
can solve alot of problems when looking for an algorithm.
I've seen plenty of brute force programmers producing awful code because
they didn't understand the problem when there were simple, elegant solutions.
Ken Walter
All the above is hearsay and the opinion of no one in particular.
Jon Shemitz
Graham Keellings wrote:
>
> I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
> disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
If I think about it, I find that I use algebra pretty much daily, in
simplifying mathemetical and/or logical expressions.
--
http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon Personal Pages
http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/pubs Programming Publications
http://www.midnightbeach.com/hs Home School Resource List
Jay Cole
iced...@ibm.net (Ken Walter) wrote:
>In message <553sov$j...@camel4.mindspring.com> - jay...@bgn.mindspring.com
>(Jay Cole) writes:
>:>
>Right, look at Knuth's Art of Computer Programming volumes to see the
>kind of math that may come in handy. Just knowing whats is in the volumes
>can solve alot of problems when looking for an algorithm.
>I've seen plenty of brute force programmers producing awful code because
>they didn't understand the problem when there were simple, elegant solutions.
Off the subject, but this is another great peice of advice. If you
need to solve a CS problem, look in Knuth's books (3) first. Chances
are that he has already documented an elegant solution for you. There
has been a couple of times that I thought I had invented something
unique only to find out Knuth did it 10+ years ago. All three volumes
are necessary shelf material for any serious programmer.
Jay Cole
David Ullrich
Various people wrote:
[Nah, don't worry about that math stuff!]
And various others replied
[Huh?]
I'm glad a few people have spoken up suggesting that
math might be useful in computer programming, because if they
didn't I was gonna have to, in spite of the fact that I'm just
one of those hobbyist programmers we hear about. Surely a lot
of people have successful careers in computer programming without
knowing any math, but advising a student not to worry about
learning any math seems very strange - there's all sorts of
doors this will close. (Also you won't look quite so silly if
you're able to concoct a sqrt function from Ln and Exp...)
The other side of the fence: I got this PhD in math
without learning anything about computer programming (or even
how to send email) - I was above all that. Then I started
looking for jobs in mathematics - 90% of the ads I didn't bother
replying to because they specified they were looking for someone
with computer experience.
--
David Ullrich
?his ?s ?avid ?llrich's ?ig ?ile
(Someone undeleted it for me...)
George E. Atkins
In article <553sov$j...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
>Processing type folks and the Computer Science type folks.
In our undergraduate Computer Science program, we have two
emphases--Information Systems Emphasis and Computer Science Emphasis
(somewhat redundant). Each leads to a B. S. degree in Computer Science.
The difference is three courses in the major (Business Programming,
Information Systems, and Data Base Management in the former and Discrete
Structures, Objected Oriented Programming, and Programming Languages in
the latter) and a difference in the Math Auxiliary requirement (the
"data processing" approach takes an Applied Calculus, any Statistics
course, and Accounting; the "pure?" folks take regular Calculus, Math
Stat, and an additional math. This seems to work well for us. Some
students can't handle the math, yet make outstanding programmers and
analysts. Others like the math and more technical courses where the
math comes in handy. Both types seems to have no difficulty find
jobs...some employers look specifically at one type or the other,
whereas most aren't really too concerned. Myself from a mathematics
background, I tend to favor requiring some math for Computer Scientist,
but can certainly see many students succeeding with minimal backgrounds.
sggo...@unity.ncsu.edu
>Whereas "math" and a "scientific mind" were originally thought to be
>requirements for computer programming (the earliest work was done
>mostly by scientists and mathemeticians), the amount of math-oriented
>programming which is now actually done is miniscule.
But math-oriented programming can pay _very_ well. Examples may be
seen in statistics, engineering, biomedical, communications, and multimedia
computer applications, to name a few. In these areas, to earn the big
bucks it helps to have a firm background in math and physics. The
world of Boolean logic is an artificial subset of a more complex mathematical
world. As computers process more and more "multivalued" real-world
data these days, math becomes very important.
Of course, there's nothing as dangerous as an electrical engineer with a
C++ compiler.... :-)
Steve Goodridge
NCSU
Engineering Student
Jacky Mallett
>Of course, there's nothing as dangerous as an electrical engineer with a
>C++ compiler.... :-)
...or a software engineer with a screwdriver...;-)
...jacky
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
war...@bnr.ca | Jacky Mallett | NorTel Japan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuan Vo
In article <5554i1$5...@camel1.mindspring.com>, jay...@bgn.mindspring.com
says...
Hi!
I've been reading you guys discussing about these Knuth's books.
What are they? Where can I get them? Title/Author's full name? Price?
Publisher? etc.
Since I'm interested in scientific programming, I think I need a hold of
these books.
Thanks.
Marlin Meier
No math needed beyond counting for 98% of all computing jobs. In
college I had 4 quarters of calculus, 1 of Advanced algerbra, 1 of
linear equations, and 1 of statistics. I also had a math programming
class. I have never used any of it in over 15 years of programming.
You cannot be stupid though. That is why there are math requirements
for a programming degree. To weed out the truely stupid.
I know two excellent programmers that never had math. In fact they
never had many programming classes. One was a music major and the
other was a speech major.
The best programmers have a love of programming and a desire to
learn.
Marlin Meier
R. Dunnill
Jay Cole wrote:
> When I recruit programmers, I either look for a strong practical
> background or a strong mathematical background. I find that EE's and
> Math/CS majors tend to make the best problem solvers. I also have to
> rank the self-taught way up there as to programming efficieny.
Here's an anecdote I have to tell you. A few months ago, I needed a
quick answer
on bitwise ANDing in Delphi. I called the Borland Pascal line, because I
knew the
two languages were essentially the same in that area, and there was no
45-minute
wait. I have a C/C++/Assembly background (self-taught), but no degree
(went to a
two-year program at a technical institute). The Borland fellow who took
the call
had a 4-year degree, I assume. He didn't know the answer, although it
was his job.
He tried to figure it out, but didn't - after 4 minutes (the charge on
the credit
card) I came up with the answer, despite not having worked with Pascal
in six years.
Btw this wasn't the first sour experience with Borland tech support. So
much for the
superior problem solving skills of 4-year CS graduates. :-)
--
>--- The power of one when it's a doer like me is awesome - L. Cocomile
Jonathan W. Hendry
George E. Atkins wrote:
>
> In article <553sov$j...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
> >Actually, in college I found two types of programmers, the Data
> >Processing type folks and the Computer Science type folks.
>
> In our undergraduate Computer Science program, we have two
> emphases--Information Systems Emphasis and Computer Science Emphasis
> (somewhat redundant). Each leads to a B. S. degree in Computer Science.
> The difference is three courses in the major (Business Programming,
> Information Systems, and Data Base Management in the former and Discrete
> Structures, Objected Oriented Programming, and Programming Languages in
> the latter)
I'd think OOP would be useful for either track. I majored in
Information Systems, but took electives on the technical side,
including Comp. Sci. courses.
--
j...@steeldriving.com
Steel Driving Software, Inc.
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Republican
My friends all own Congress, I must make amends
No cash in my trust fund, no big dividends
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Republican
David Charlap
Tuan Vo <vo...@hg.uleth.ca> wrote:
>
>I've been reading you guys discussing about these Knuth's books.
>What are they? Where can I get them? Title/Author's full name? Price?
>Publisher? etc.
The title is: "The Art Of Computer Programming". It's in three
volumes. Volume 4 should be out real soon now if it isn't already.
The author is Donald Knuth. I don't know other details. They are
hardcover and will probably not be cheap.
You should be able to find them at any good computer book store. If
not, they can probably order them for you.
---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
David Charlap | The contents of this message are not the opinions of |
da...@visix.com | Visix Software, nor of anyone besides myself. |
Visix Software, Inc. +--------------------------------------------------------+
Member of Team-OS/2 | They say that by 2335, we'll be able to go three whole |
---------------------+ hours without Windows crashing. |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Danna Chiasson
I just started using WINDOWS 95.
Before I was usin WINDOWS 3.1 and DOS 6.2.
Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
Any info will be appreciated.
Ben Sauvin
I wouldn't recommend it.
Windows 95, at least as installed on my machine, makes use of some
kind of creature called VFAT, which has something to do with the
filesystem (long file names at the very least), and is administered by a
similarly named device driver which rudely died on a friend's machine,
forcing re-install.
What I DON'T know is if the VFAT is simply some kind of
superstructure, or if there's some fundamental difference between it and
the traditional FAT filesystem. If the two systems are NOT identically
structured (with the long file names being stored in some other file
similar in concept to OS/2's Extended Attributes files), then you may be
risking irrecoverable damage to your current setup. The defrag that came
with DOS 6.22 wouldn't know a VFAT from margarine.
John McTaggart
m...@roadnet.ups.com (Marlin Meier) wrote:
>No math needed beyond counting for 98% of all computing jobs. In
>college I had 4 quarters of calculus, 1 of Advanced algerbra, 1 of
>linear equations, and 1 of statistics. I also had a math programming
>class. I have never used any of it in over 15 years of programming.
>You cannot be stupid though. That is why there are math requirements
>for a programming degree. To weed out the truely stupid.
Just because someone isn't good at math, doesn't necessarily make them
any less intelligent than some who is.
Mostly, it's logic. Almost anyone with strong tendancies towards
logical order will be a decent programmer. It's being able to see a
goal, and actually be able to reason your way to it...math comes into
play very rarely in most programming, but the use of applied logic in
any kind of programming is constant and continual.
>I know two excellent programmers that never had math. In fact they
>never had many programming classes. One was a music major and the
>other was a speech major.
The music major doesn't surprise me, the speech major does.
>The best programmers have a love of programming and a desire to
>learn.
Too true.
JE McTaggart
t...@iguana.ruralnet.net
The Fool
Danna Chiasson wrote:
>
> I just started using WINDOWS 95.
>
> Before I was usin WINDOWS 3.1 and DOS 6.2.
> Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
> the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
>
> I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
>
> Any info will be appreciated.
>
> Danna_C...@lagn.com
>
As long as you disable long names in win95 and run the program in DOS
mode (not the shell!) there should be no troubles.
--
Have a nice day,
THE FOOL
I THINK I'M GOING SLIGHTLY MAD ...
Erik M. Johnson
Interesting. Actually, musicians make good mathematicians, since music is
fundamentally based on mathematics, and you have to be quite good at math
to be a good musician (at least to understand and implement music
theory--I'm not talking about "play by ear" people).
Marlin Meier <m...@roadnet.ups.com> wrote in article
<5585fp$o...@news.roadnet.ups.com>...
> No math needed beyond counting for 98% of all computing jobs. In
> college I had 4 quarters of calculus, 1 of Advanced algerbra, 1 of
> linear equations, and 1 of statistics. I also had a math programming
> class. I have never used any of it in over 15 years of programming.
>
> You cannot be stupid though. That is why there are math requirements
> for a programming degree. To weed out the truely stupid.
>
> I know two excellent programmers that never had math. In fact they
> never had many programming classes. One was a music major and the
> other was a speech major.
>
> The best programmers have a love of programming and a desire to
> learn.
>
> Marlin Meier
>
>
David Ullrich
Erik M. Johnson wrote:
>
> Interesting. Actually, musicians make good mathematicians, since music is
> fundamentally based on mathematics, and you have to be quite good at math
> to be a good musician (at least to understand and implement music
> theory--I'm not talking about "play by ear" people).
>
Getting farther and farther off topic... How many musicians and
mathematicians have you known? I've known quite a few of each. It's
conventional wisdom that a lot of mathematicians have musical inclinations,
not that I'd hazard an explanation, but it appears to be true. But this is
the first time I've heard anyone suggest that musicians were better
mathematicians than the general population, and it's also the first time
I've heard anyone suggest that you needed any math at all to be a
musician.
Precisely what sort of mathematical skills does the typical
musician need? (And again, how many musicians do you know - do they
really seem like better mathematicians than most people?)
Julian Pardoe
Jon Shemitz wrote:
> Graham Keellings wrote:
> > I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
> > disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
>
> If I think about it, I find that I use algebra pretty much daily, in
> simplifying mathemetical and/or logical expressions.
Yes, but it's hardly the kind of maths that you need to do a university
course in to be able cope with!
There's a certain kind of abstract thinking that programmers need to be
good at, a similar kind of thinking that is often useful in maths too,
but that doesn't mean that no one but a trained mathematician can think
in that way.
-- jP --
Ruben L. Garcia
Windows95 uses long names. The older software can't handle that. When I
run Defrag I'll leave for about two or three hours. It does it's job. I
haven't tried the old defrag, but if it works for you let us know.
Good Luck.
Danna Chiasson <danna_c...@lagn.com> wrote in article
<0132...@lagn.com>...
Beau Schwabe
In article <0132...@lagn.com>, danna_c...@lagn.com says...
>
>
>I just started using WINDOWS 95.
>
>Before I was usin WINDOWS 3.1 and DOS 6.2.
>Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
>the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
Nope!
I tried this and had to PURGE my entire Hard-Drive afterwards
luckily I had a backup (IOMEGA ZIP drives are great). What
happens is that Win95's use of long file names are not
compatable. And before you say anything... I thought that
because I was not, or had not created any long file names,
that I would be O.K. right? WRONG!!
>
>I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
I have heard this from alot of people, I being one! And since have
invested in Norton95 and the only thing I really don't like about
it, is that you can't SORT the files by NAME on the directory.
It is something I have learned to get used to, but I am a DOS/WINDOWS
person, and I like some sort of ORDER when residing in DOS.
>
>Any info will be appreciated.
>
>Danna_C...@lagn.com
>
Beau Schwabe
bsch...@ionet.net
Yana
Windows95 uses long names. The older software can't handle that. When I
run Defrag I'll leave for about two or three hours. It does it's job. I
haven't tried the old defrag, but if it works for you let us know.
Good Luck.
Danna Chiasson <danna_c...@lagn.com> wrote in article
<0132...@lagn.com>...
>
> I just started using WINDOWS 95.
>
> Before I was usin WINDOWS 3.1 and DOS 6.2.
> Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
> the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
>
> I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
>
Alexandre Karev
On 30 Oct 1996, Marlin Meier wrote:
> No math needed beyond counting for 98% of all computing jobs. In
> college I had 4 quarters of calculus, 1 of Advanced algerbra, 1 of
> linear equations, and 1 of statistics. I also had a math programming
> class. I have never used any of it in over 15 years of programming.
>
> You cannot be stupid though. That is why there are math requirements
> for a programming degree. To weed out the truely stupid.
>
> I know two excellent programmers that never had math. In fact they
> never had many programming classes. One was a music major and the
> other was a speech major.
>
> The best programmers have a love of programming and a desire to
> learn.
>
> Marlin Meier
Prob. my comment out of topic, but...
I think that all depends on what kind of programming you are
doing.
I can't say nothing about System Programmer/Analyst job,
but I'm agree with next:
"The best spend money is money spend on education"
If you don't know mathematics, you can't analyse and/or
(prob. most important!) predict results.
Have a look, for example, at Knuth's "Art of programming"
and Berton & Nackman 's "Scientific and Engineering
C++" (ch. 16-17).
These gentlemen (and a lot of others) proved that knowledge of
mathematics is essential for serious programmers.
Please, don't flame - this my own opinion.
Kent Budge
David Ullrich wrote:
>
> Erik M. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. Actually, musicians make good mathematicians, since music is
> > fundamentally based on mathematics, and you have to be quite good at math
> Precisely what sort of mathematical skills does the typical
> musician need? (And again, how many musicians do you know - do they
> really seem like better mathematicians than most people?)
>
> --
> David Ullrich
>
> ?his ?s ?avid ?llrich's ?ig ?ile
> (Someone undeleted it for me...)
--
If I may interject...
I have known only a handful of pure mathematicians, and none seemed
extraordinarily musical, with the sole exception of a Caltech math
major who just made his debut at the Metropolitan Opera. However, I
have known a great many technically-oriented people, all heavy users
of applied math, and as a whole they do seem slightly more musical than
the average man on the street.
I have known many musicians, and with the sole exception of the
aforementioned mathematician/opera singer, they have been math bozos.
However, it is claimed in _Eagle Against the Sun_, a history of the
Pacific war (1941-1945), that after the battleship _California_ was
sunk at Pearl Harbor, the surviving members of the ship's band were
temporarily assigned to the Hawaii cryptanalysis section and quickly
proved unusually adept, prompting the Navy to routinely screen
musicians for cryptanalytic aptitude.
-Kent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
_/_/_/
_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Department 9231
_/_/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Albuquerque, NM 87185-0819
_/_/_/_/_/_/
/ _/ _/_/ _/ tel: 505 284 3825 _/ _/_/
_/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ fax: 505 844 0918 _/ _/_/
_/
_/_/_/
Computational Physics Research
and Development Department Kent G. Budge -
kgb...@sandia.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(usual disclaimer)
Return address hacked to foil junk mail; edit before replying.
Costas Peppas
Danna Chiasson wrote:
>
> I just started using WINDOWS 95.
>
> Before I was usin WINDOWS 3.1 and DOS 6.2.
> Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
> the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
>
> I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
>
> Any info will be appreciated.
Don't hold me to thyis, But in my past with computers, NO DOS version
is compatible with the other (You can't run a DOS 5.0 program on DOS
6.33, or whatever).... The same probably goes for WINDOWS 95....
Jim Smithermn
Erik M. Johnson wrote:
>
> Interesting. Actually, musicians make good mathematicians, since music is
> fundamentally based on mathematics, and you have to be quite good at math
> theory--I'm not talking about "play by ear" people).
>
Well, perhaps potentially do musicians make good mathematicians. You
need little or no developed math skills to be a good musician, including
that of theorists. I have a masters degree in music theory, the last
math course I had was 20 odd years ago in high school. I would have to
admit that I am definitely not 'quite good at math.' I'm very good with
music theory, though. I also seem to take to computer related things
quite easily. This is fortunate, too, as there is little money to be
made as a music theorist, and a fair amount (at least a living) to be
made as a computer consultant/programmer/troubleshooter.
The kind of ability to manipulate symbols easily is the talent being
spoken of here, I believe. Mathematical thought is similar to
music-theoretical thought in that way, but the specific skills don't
carry over one to the other. Although I may be able to follow an
intricate Schenkerian analysis of, say, a Beethoven symphony, I would be
lost in a calculus discussion.
regards
Jim
Jack Dorland
Uh, I don't think anyone will be holding you to this, because it is
inaccurate.
Every new version of DOS (as it is, no new versions of DOS are being
created) is backwards compatible.
When you read the back of a software box, and it says it requires DOS
5.0, you can use it if you have DOS 6.22. However, if you only have DOS
4 (ya, right!) then you will not be able to use it. It's the same with
just about everything else. If a game requires a 386, you can still play
it on a 486, but you probably can't use a 286 to play it.
How many situtations have you really run into where a program designed
before DOS 6 was made (ie, designed with another version of DOS in mind)
was made will not run in DOS 6? There aren't a large number of
exceptions.
Any program that will run in DOS 5 will run in all future versions of
DOS. If no DOS version was compatible with any other, game designers
would have to totally overhaul a game when new versions came out. I'm
sure you have an old game or two that only requires DOS 3 or 4. Chances
are you don't have an old copy of DOS 3 just lying around, but you can
still play it, no? :-)
-Jesse
Jack Dorland
Henrik Bäärnhielm
Ben Sauvin wrote:
> > Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
> > the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
> >
> > I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
> >
> > Any info will be appreciated.
> Windows 95, at least as installed on my machine, makes use of some
> kind of creature called VFAT, which has something to do with the
> filesystem (long file names at the very least), and is administered by a
> similarly named device driver which rudely died on a friend's machine,
> forcing re-install.
>
> What I DON'T know is if the VFAT is simply some kind of
> superstructure, or if there's some fundamental difference between it and
> the traditional FAT filesystem. If the two systems are NOT identically
> structured (with the long file names being stored in some other file
> similar in concept to OS/2's Extended Attributes files), then you may be
> risking irrecoverable damage to your current setup. The defrag that came
> with DOS 6.22 wouldn't know a VFAT from margarine.
You shouldn't use your old Defrag if you don't disable long file names
in Windows 95.
VFAT is not a superstructure. It's one of the bad things with Win 95. As
you know, the hard disk is divided into 65535 sectors, size depending on
the size of the hard disk. A file takes up AT LEAST ONE sector. That is
bad because small files take up more space than they should. The VFAT
makes a new file for EACH file that has a long file name or if the file
name is in lower-case letters where it stores information about the long
filename. That file is as you probably understand very small but it goes
under the same rules as other files on the hard disk as described above.
So there are a lot of wasted disk space. It would have been better if
the long filenames were stored in some kind of OS/2 way (descript.ion).
Windows NT is better if you use NTFS but it's the same if you choose to
have FAT system there also.
Microsoft haven't made it good, but we have too live with it I suppose.
:(
Hope you got some answers.
--
***************************************
Internet : Henrik.B...@abc.se
Fidonet : Henrik Baarnhielm, 2:201/235
***************************************
Jon Bell
I think that for general-purpose programming, one doesn't need
*specific* math skills beyond some Boolean logic and maybe a bit of
algebra and probability theory. Nor does one need to know how to play a
musical instrument or compose a fugue. :-)
However, the general problem-solving skills that one must develop in order
to do math well at the higher levels are similar to the problem-solving
skills that a programmer/analyst needs in order to analyze a problem and
design a program to solve it. Consider the process of constructing a
proof, or solving a complex integral or differential equation, or
analyzing a "word problem" in algebra. They are not merely "mechanical"
processes, but require insight and the ability to recognize when a problem
is similar to, or even contains, one that has already been solved.
It would seem reasonable to expect that such skills might carry over from
math into programming.
As for music, consider the process of learning a piece so that one can
perform it from memory. Surely musicians don't simply memorize sequences
of notes; they must somehow organize the music into sections, layers or
patterns so that they can remember it more easily. This might be related
to the higher-level problem solving skills used in math. Composing a
complex piece of music involves organizing notes into complex sequences
and mastering a lot of detail; aren't these characteristics of most
programming?
To throw another field into this discussion: what about writers? Good
writers have to be able to organize their thoughts logically. The best
computer science student I've ever had here was actually an English major!
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Jesam lud? A?
L. Lewis (lar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:56:31 -0800, Paul Picard
: <ppi...@ciao.trail.bc.ca> wrote:
: Although not strictly required...I would highly recommend getting a
: 4-year college degree in Computer Science. You could also go one
: better and pursue a degree in Computer Engineering. You are going to
: need to know algebra, trigonometry, and calculus. The more the
: better- Differential Equations, Linear Algegra, Numerical Analysis,
: Logic and Statistics would also be good to know.
I learned all mentioned above in high school...
Mike
Ovo je moj signacur fajl...
James Logajan
Jack Dorland (sylva...@geocities.com) wrote:
[elided]
: Every new version of DOS (as it is, no new versions of DOS are being
: created) is backwards compatible.
[elided]
If memory serves me, there was a distinct break in compatability in going
from DOS 1.x to DOS 2.x. DOS 2 was not backward comptable with DOS 1.
Jesse Dorland
I imagine that's correct. DOS 2 was radically different from DOS 1. But
how many programs do you have on your PC that were designed for DOS 1.0?
There certainly aren't very many living DOS 1.0 programs out there,
that's for sure. The point I was trying to make is that one DOS version
is not incompatible with an earlier DOS version, unless I suppose you're
talking about DOS 1-2.
-Jesse
Jim Smitherman
David Ullrich wrote:
> Getting farther and farther off topic... How many musicians and
> mathematicians have you known? I've known quite a few of each. It's
> conventional wisdom that a lot of mathematicians have musical inclinations,
> not that I'd hazard an explanation, but it appears to be true. But this is
> the first time I've heard anyone suggest that musicians were better
> mathematicians than the general population, and it's also the first time
> I've heard anyone suggest that you needed any math at all to be a
> musician.
> Precisely what sort of mathematical skills does the typical
> musician need? (And again, how many musicians do you know - do they
> really seem like better mathematicians than most people?)
>
This is interesting . . I've been a professional musician for 30 odd
years, with two degrees in theory/composition and experience playing
keyboards in every concievable situation, lately come to work as a
computer consultant/programmer. I come to this group looking for
insights into computing and VOILA we are speaking of music. This must
mean something <s>.
There aren't many direct math skills involved in music: there is
rhythmic counting, and you can get away with being able to count only to
3 (if you group the more exotic meters into small portions of 2's and
3's i.e., in 5 count 123/12). That's really about it typically. For
doing a lot of modern music analysis/composition you can get into 'set
theory' which is fairly mathematical, notes are assigned numeric values
and these values can be variously manipulated. This is not typical.
Music generally is suceptable to math-like descriptions and analysis,
but this isn't math in the textbook sense of the word.
I'm currently working on a database app for a real estate company that
involves basic algegraic stuff and if then else constructions . . I
wouldn't say that it is 'music-like.' But an essential quality I think
of a good programmer/musician is a certain stubborness in the face of
complexity: you sort of chew on the problem, a piece at a time, and
eventually you know you will have it.
Jim
Jim Smitherman
this is probably just picking nits, but running at least some of the
various system utilities of one version of DOS with another will result
in 'incorrect DOS version' errors. I've never felt the need to really
do it, but I suppose setver would fix this problem?
Jim
David Ullrich
Kent Budge wrote:
>
> David Ullrich wrote:
> >
> > Erik M. Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting. Actually, musicians make good mathematicians, since music is
> > > fundamentally based on mathematics, and you have to be quite good at math
> > Precisely what sort of mathematical skills does the typical
> > musician need? (And again, how many musicians do you know - do they
> > really seem like better mathematicians than most people?)
> >
> > David Ullrich
> >
> > ?his ?s ?avid ?llrich's ?ig ?ile
> > (Someone undeleted it for me...)
>
> --
>
> If I may interject...
>
> I have known only a handful of pure mathematicians, and none seemed
> extraordinarily musical, with the sole exception of a Caltech math
> major who just made his debut at the Metropolitan Opera.
Well if you've only known a handful then what does that
prove? (Otoh one out of a handful is a sizeable percentage.)
> However, I
> have known a great many technically-oriented people, all heavy users
> of applied math, and as a whole they do seem slightly more musical than
> the average man on the street.
>
> I have known many musicians, and with the sole exception of the
> aforementioned mathematician/opera singer, they have been math bozos.
More to the point (perhaps better addressed to the originators
of all this): It happens that people hiring computer programmers look
at the applicants' math backgrounds. (Not just speculating, in fact
we've seen people in this very thread assert that they do so when they
hire programmers.) Has anyone ever heard of a person applying for a job
as a violinist and being rejected because of his lack of mathematical
ability or training? Just once in the history of the universe? I doubt
it.
rok...@flash.net
In message <327e53bf...@news.flash.net> - sand...@flash.net (Mr.
Sandman)Sun, 03 Nov 1996 08:36:08 GMT writes:
~
~On 29 Oct 1996 23:57:30 GMT, atk...@brightok.net (George E. Atkins)
~wrote:
~
~>In our undergraduate Computer Science program, we have two
~>emphases--Information Systems Emphasis and Computer Science Emphasis
~>(somewhat redundant). Each leads to a B. S. degree in Computer Science.
~>The difference is three courses in the major (Business Programming,
~>Information Systems, and Data Base Management in the former and Discrete
~>Structures, Objected Oriented Programming, and Programming Languages in
~>the latter) and a difference in the Math Auxiliary requirement
~
~I was wondering, since I'll be applying for college as a freshmen
~soon, what the actual difference between the two fields are. When I
~think of computer programming jobs, what always used to come to my
~mind was working for a company like Microsoft, Netscape, or Id, coding
~cutting edge-OS's, applications, and 3D games. But I take it many of
~high paying jobs out there have nothing to do with any of those
~things. What exactly do Information Systems Programmers/Analysts do
~on daily basis on their jobs? Not to offend anyone out there who is,
~but it makes me wonder how enjoyable or interesting it could possibly
~be spend a career analysing and updating old business databases, often
~written by someone else years before you were hired. BTW, I'm
~currently in my second year of high school computer science (Pascal),
~and would appreciate any advice or recommendations as to which field
~of study I might be better off pursuing in college.
~
I would stick to the pure Computer Science. Pure CS contains more
mathematics. Calculus I-III and other advanced math courses. Complex
problems are solved using advance mathematics in these programming
courses, along with study of Computer Architecture. You can always
be a Info Sys Prog with this degree. With the CS you can develop
new Operating Systems, Compiliers, API's, Database's, discover and
patent new algorithyms, Architect new Mircroprocessor's or Computer
Systems, develop new methods of 3D programming (X,Y, & Z planes).
RokNroB ->"Yeap, I said it."
The opinions expressed above are of my own free thought and should not
be considered to represent the views of my employer or other interested
parties.
Michael Bialas
On 1 Nov 1996 19:14:04 -0700, Jack Dorland <sylva...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Costas Peppas wrote:
>>
>> Danna Chiasson wrote:
>> >
>> > I just started using WINDOWS 95.
>> >
>> > Before I was usin WINDOWS 3.1 and DOS 6.2.
>> > the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
>> >
>> > I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
>> >
>> > Any info will be appreciated.
Je, just use the old DEFRAG-Programm, it will just destroy your Windoof 95
installation. No joke, don't use it, cause of the new vfat-system in Windoof
95. You should'nt use any old DOS program which needs direct access to your
hard disks.
Bye
Michael
--
Michael Bialas
e-mail: mic...@quinto.ruhr.de
giacomo boffi
da...@visix.com (David Charlap) writes:
> Tuan Vo <vo...@hg.uleth.ca> wrote:
> >I've been reading you guys discussing about these Knuth's books.
>
> The title is: "The Art Of Computer Programming". [...]
> You should be able to find them at any good computer book store.
to tell the truth, you have better chances of finding "HTML for the
stoopid", "333 tricks for Word for Windows", "Java inside-out, the
Revelation" and another zillion such books
but if you look _very_carefully_ you maybe could find Knuth's books
> If not, they can probably order them for you.
that's true, especially if your good computer book store is a good
book store
ciao
gb
Chris
Maybe musiciens got an other kinf of mathematics, not boolean nor algebric,
but rather shapes and movements.
Chris
Jim Smitherman
Chris wrote:
>
> Maybe musiciens got an other kinf of mathematics, not boolean nor algebric,
> but rather shapes and movements.
>
. . . and colors . .
Jim
Jones Family
>
> >In our undergraduate Computer Science program, we have two
>
What real programmers do in real jobs is 90% working with programs,
source-code or modules that someone else wrote.
Most real jobs these days in real companies involve installing vendor
software and tools and answering end-user questions regarding same.
If you don't expect to work 90% on someone else's programs/projects,
I suspect you will find little to do in this field unless you start
your own company and hire only yourself.
I am employed by the State of California (20yrs in I.S.)
Richard A. O'Keefe
da...@visix.com (David Charlap) writes:
>The title is: "The Art Of Computer Programming". It's in three
>volumes. Volume 4 should be out real soon now if it isn't already.
>The author is Donald Knuth. I don't know other details. They are
>hardcover and will probably not be cheap.
I have a paperback copy of volume 1 sitting beside my terminal...
--
Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote!
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.
New Man
Alexandre,
For the sake of the historical record, there was once a little boy named
Albert whom his first teacher in school quickly picked out as one who would
never amount to anything.
This little boy was not good at math, in fact despised it. But he had a
favorite uncle who loved to play mathematical games. And so, little Albert
was drawn into grudging competence in mathematics.
He continued to be no great success in school and was unable to qualify for
university when the time came. He did manage to enroll in a technical
school and get some training there.
He fled his native country because of his fear of the wars there and the
danger to him in its army.
He came to a humble job in the Swiss patent office and within a few years
in his spare time did the work that would revolutionize the scientific
world, for, you see, little Albert's surname was Einstein.
Mike Copeland
> What real programmers do in real jobs is 90% working with programs,
> source-code or modules that someone else wrote.
>
> Most real jobs these days in real companies involve installing vendor
> software and tools and answering end-user questions regarding same.
>
> If you don't expect to work 90% on someone else's programs/projects,
> I suspect you will find little to do in this field unless you start
> your own company and hire only yourself.
>
> I am employed by the State of California (20yrs in I.S.)
I can't agree (and I've been a professional programmer for more than
36 years). Yes, some programming jobs are primarily C&F (Care and
Feeding): maintaining applications written months (years) ago by others,
and that trend is growing. However, to say that "most" programming jobs
fall into just that work is misleading and patently false - many new
applications, programs, utilities, etc. are being written every day, by
programmers primarily doing new work, on new platforms, with new and
changing environments. The data processing field is ever-changing, and
is doing at an ever-increasing rate - more is being done (by fewer
people, to be sure), and there seems no end in sight.
So to generalize that _most_ programming jobs are in maintenance
functions is quite short-sighted and basically wrong, as I see it. Sure,
computer programming is a different job than it used to be (when I
started, in 1960), but much of it is due to tools and environments which
allow us to do more, in a variety of ways. The opportunities for
rewarding work, innovation, satisfaction, and personal growth are by _no_
means limited today, nor are they restricted to any particular type of
work. In fact, the opposite seems true...
Jonathan W. Hendry
Michael Urbaniak wrote:
>
> Mr. Sandman wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Oct 1996 23:57:30 GMT, atk...@brightok.net (George E. Atkins)
> > wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering, since I'll be applying for college as a freshmen
> > soon, what the actual difference between the two fields are. When I
> > think of computer programming jobs, what always used to come to my
> > mind was working for a company like Microsoft, Netscape, or Id, coding
> > cutting edge-OS's, applications, and 3D games. But I take it many of
>
;)
> > high paying jobs out there have nothing to do with any of those
> > things. What exactly do Information Systems Programmers/Analysts do
> > on daily basis on their jobs? Not to offend anyone out there who is,
> > but it makes me wonder how enjoyable or interesting it could possibly
> > be spend a career analysing and updating old business databases, often
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I would die if I had to do this. Makes you brain dead.
Sometimes...
> > written by someone else years before you were hired. BTW, I'm
> > currently in my second year of high school computer science (Pascal),
>
> Do Computer Science. I can't see any fun in working on bussiness or data
> base stuff. This is boorriinngg .... And forget games. They are for
> wimps only. Real men do Real Time embedded stuff, RT OS'es, comms,
> assembly on RISCs etc. Thats were fun is (challenge I mean). And one
> more thing, forget Micro$oft, do Unix, Unix rules. BTW forget Pascal, do
> C or C++.
I'd suspect that the average large business application is more
challenging than the average embedded (etc) app. Why? Business
apps involve interacting with people, which introduces an enormous
number of variables. RT hardware doesn't change its mind, but people
do, especially in large organization.
Most of the applications written today involve database access. This
does not mean that they are boring. Some are. Others get into
interesting things like data vizualization, using graphics to
help find trends in massive amounts of data. Another interesting
thing is developing new ways to present or access existing data. Or
analsis of data with a neural net or genetic algorithm. Much of
the work in artificial intelligence is being done in the finance
industry. Heck, a lot of advanced applications of all kinds
are being written in the financial industry.
"Database" should not automatically bring "Access" to mind. Databases
range all the way up to the multi-terabyte databases like Lexis-Nexis.
I'm sure there are *very* interesting databases in use at places like
NASA, and JPL, not to mention the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other
defense/security
agencies. With that much data, you can get into some very interesting
and novel software.
For the most part, it is possible to do "cool software" in any
problem domain. The "coolness" may come from implementing a
great UI, or a very elegant class library, or a tightly integrated
custom-software suite, or a complex distributed-object implementation,
or a Java front-end to a database long accessed via VT100's.
That said, there's a lot of lumpenprogrammers out there. To
an extent, the coolness of your job depends on you. It also
depends on your managers - do they just want lumpen software?
Or do they want excellent software?
Chad Douglas
Chris wrote:
>
> James Logajan <jam...@netcom.com> a écrit dans l'article
> <jameslE0...@netcom.com>...
> > Jack Dorland (sylva...@geocities.com) wrote:
> > [elided]
> > : Every new version of DOS (as it is, no new versions of DOS are being
> > : created) is backwards compatible.
> > [elided]
> >
> > If memory serves me, there was a distinct break in compatability in going
> > from DOS 1.x to DOS 2.x. DOS 2 was not backward comptable with DOS 1.
> >
>
> Chris
Dos is a strange animal. With the exception of DOS 1-2, Programs
designed for an older version of DOS will run on a newer version. There
are some exceptions to this rule, however, but its not because of DOS.
Several programs checked the DOS version to make sure they could run
properly. When they were coded, either through ignorance or planned
obsolencence, programmers would tell the program "If it is not DOS 3.1,
don't run." This works fine unless you aren't running DOS 3.1. If you
are running DOS 3.0, then the program behaves properly, because there
might be some new feature of DOS 3.1 that 3.0 cannot do. However, this
causes interesting problems if you are using DOS 3.2. Since DOS 3.2 is
fully backward-compatible with DOS 3.1, then there is no reason for the
program to abort, but since it is not DOS 3.1, it aborts with an
"incorrect DOS version" error. That's where SETVER is handy. It will
lie to programs that REQUIRE a specific release of DOS to run.
The best fix is for programmers to tell their programs "Don't run unless
this is DOS 3.1 OR HIGHER." Most of today's programmers know about this
problem and avoid it, but I have already encountered it in Windows 95.
I have a few old Windows 3.1 apps that bomb, saying that you must have
Windows 3.1 in order to run them...
Oh well.. Perhaps someone will come up with SETVER for WIN95.... :)
Chad
Michael Urbaniak
Mr. Sandman wrote:
>
> On 29 Oct 1996 23:57:30 GMT, atk...@brightok.net (George E. Atkins)
> wrote:
>
> I was wondering, since I'll be applying for college as a freshmen
> soon, what the actual difference between the two fields are. When I
> think of computer programming jobs, what always used to come to my
> mind was working for a company like Microsoft, Netscape, or Id, coding
> cutting edge-OS's, applications, and 3D games. But I take it many of
cutting edge OS from Micro$oft, hmmm.
> high paying jobs out there have nothing to do with any of those
> things. What exactly do Information Systems Programmers/Analysts do
> on daily basis on their jobs? Not to offend anyone out there who is,
> but it makes me wonder how enjoyable or interesting it could possibly
> be spend a career analysing and updating old business databases, often
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would die if I had to do this. Makes you brain dead.
> written by someone else years before you were hired. BTW, I'm
> currently in my second year of high school computer science (Pascal),
Do Computer Science. I can't see any fun in working on bussiness or data
base stuff. This is boorriinngg .... And forget games. They are for
wimps only. Real men do Real Time embedded stuff, RT OS'es, comms,
assembly on RISCs etc. Thats were fun is (challenge I mean). And one
more thing, forget Micro$oft, do Unix, Unix rules. BTW forget Pascal, do
C or C++.
Mike
Bruce
In comp.os.msdos.programmer
"Jonathan W. Hendry" <j...@steeldriving.com> wrote:
>I'd suspect that the average large business application is
>more challenging than the average embedded (etc) app.
>Why? Business apps involve interacting with people, which
>introduces an enormous number of variables. RT hardware
>doesn't change its mind, but people do, especially in large
>organization.
I'm deep in the middle of a large embedded RT app, being
written for a large organization. We have had weekly
meetings with the customer for over 2 years. As well as
monthly meetings with THEIR customer (Exxon) and various
overseers hired by each. The requirements change every
week, so don't tell me embedded apps don't have to deal with
variables. Luckily, we are hourly consultants, so every
change is just more money for us. The original spec went
out the window about a year ago :)
>Most of the applications written today involve database
>access. This does not mean that they are boring. Some are.
Yes, even ours ultimately involves a database, but I try to
stay away from that end of it. If you think customers are a
pain in the ass on the RT end of this, you ought to hear
them on the UI part.
>That said, there's a lot of lumpenprogrammers out there. To
>an extent, the coolness of your job depends on you. It also
>depends on your managers - do they just want lumpen
>software? Or do they want excellent software?
I want excellent software. Frankly, I love learning, and
you have to in this dynamic business. I've been lucky
enough to do a lot of different types of programming.
Myself, I got fed up with trying to meet everyones idea of a
perfect UI. That is one big advantage of doing embedded
stuff. There is seldom much, if any, interface.
Bruce
Daniel Kang
Henrik Bäärnhielm <Henrik.B...@abc.se> wrote in article
<32795B...@abc.se>...
Too many wrong informations here.
1. A file takes up at least 1 cluster not 1 sector.
2. Hard disk can be divided into any number (there's a limit, though)
of sectors, not 65535 (I think you were trying to tell the limit of
the number of clusters in a hard disk).
3. Win95 does not make files to store long filenames. Long filename
informations are stored in directory entry which does not take an
extra cluster (you're confusing a cluster with a sector so I put this
instead of sector) for each LFN.
I agree with your last statement but Microsoft has done a better job
(than IBM, of course).
Daniel Kang
> Don't hold me to thyis, But in my past with computers, NO DOS
version
> is compatible with the other (You can't run a DOS 5.0 program on
DOS
> 6.33, or whatever).... The same probably goes for WINDOWS 95....
No, you're wrong here. They are actually compatible. The only thing
you need to do is to alter version settings in setver.exe (But why
would you do that?). There hasn't been an actual change in file
system until win95.
John McTaggart
David Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>> If I may interject...
>>
>> I have known only a handful of pure mathematicians, and none seemed
>> extraordinarily musical, with the sole exception of a Caltech math
>> major who just made his debut at the Metropolitan Opera.
> Well if you've only known a handful then what does that
>prove? (Otoh one out of a handful is a sizeable percentage.)
>> However, I
>> have known a great many technically-oriented people, all heavy users
>> of applied math, and as a whole they do seem slightly more musical than
>> the average man on the street.
>>
>> I have known many musicians, and with the sole exception of the
>> aforementioned mathematician/opera singer, they have been math bozos.
> More to the point (perhaps better addressed to the originators
>of all this): It happens that people hiring computer programmers look
>at the applicants' math backgrounds. (Not just speculating, in fact
>we've seen people in this very thread assert that they do so when they
>hire programmers.) Has anyone ever heard of a person applying for a job
>as a violinist and being rejected because of his lack of mathematical
>ability or training? Just once in the history of the universe? I doubt
>it.
Ever the objective view from the ivory tower...
JE McTaggart
t...@iguana.ruralnet.net
Daniel P Hudson
Actually, that's not entirely true, versions earlier than 3.0 can't
run on modern DOS OS's. Win 3.0 can't run on 3.1 and above, etc..
the FAT system did change after DOS 3.x I believe also. Some of the
compatability problems can be handled by SERTVER because coders seem
some idiotic reason to check the OS version and instead of using a
greater than or equal test, they used an equal test. However, a lot
of software depends on system services that rwere replaced later
on in DOS versions.
T.W.J. jakobs
>Too many wrong informations here.
>
>1. A file takes up at least 1 cluster not 1 sector.
>
>2. Hard disk can be divided into any number (there's a limit, though)
>of sectors, not 65535 (I think you were trying to tell the limit of
>the number of clusters in a hard disk).
>
>3. Win95 does not make files to store long filenames. Long filename
>informations are stored in directory entry which does not take an
>extra cluster (you're confusing a cluster with a sector so I put this
>instead of sector) for each LFN.
>
>I agree with your last statement but Microsoft has done a better job
>(than IBM, of course).
>
Be carefull when you want to do something like this, I mean messing about with
windows95 and FAT, because the new Windows95 (OSR2) supports also FAT32 which
has clusters of 4K instead of 16K or 32K....
Cja,
Andre Jakobs
MicroBrain Technologies Inc.
The Netherlands
Tim Snape
Bruce wrote:
>
> >That said, there's a lot of lumpenprogrammers out there. To
> >an extent, the coolness of your job depends on you. It also
> >depends on your managers - do they just want lumpen
> >software? Or do they want excellent software?
>
> I want excellent software. Frankly, I love learning, and
> you have to in this dynamic business. I've been lucky
> enough to do a lot of different types of programming.
> Myself, I got fed up with trying to meet everyones idea of a
> perfect UI. That is one big advantage of doing embedded
> stuff. There is seldom much, if any, interface.
The neat thing about this industry is that you can decide the kind
of work you do. If you want money, Cobol maintenance, and
the specialised high value stuff, if you want to learn work for a small
startup that is just about to go places.
The problem with the industry is that the salary ceiling is quite low and you
tend to reach it fairly quickly (if you are good). Once you have hit this ceiling
it is difficult to stay programming and most migrate into management and die.
If you chose the right start up company, then you may end up,
wealthy and happily coding into old age. My advise - always go for experience
and the money will follow. The trick is in second guessing which experienceto go for.
Tim
PS I am poor, old and still coding, but I work on what I enjoy.
Theodor Kleynhans
Hi,
I'm afraid that is not quite correct. A disk (either FAT or VFAT) can have a
maximum of 65527 Clusters, not Sectors. The cluster is the smallest unit of
disk space that can be allocated for use; it always consists of one or more
consecutive logical sectors. The number of sectors in a cluster is always a
power of 2, to simplify conversion between cluster number and logical sector
number.
Windows 95's long filenames don't take up any clusters, only a few directory
entries. Win95 stores the 8.3 filename as a normal directory entry, and the
long filename as a special entry with a couple of attributes set
(Hidden+System+ReadOnly+Volume Label). They found after a lot of testing that
legacy programs did not find or complain about these entries. The only area
where this system is of concern is in the root directory which can't grow
dynamically like normal directories and is thus succeptible to a fill-up.
In answer to the original question: DON'T USE DOS' DEFRAG IN WIN95! As it
writes directly to directories after moving, you will lose your long filenames.
I haven't tested it yet, but I'm sure Win95 won't even let you run it.
Regards,
Theodor
_______________________________________
Theodor Kleynhans :)
EMail: the...@gem.co.za
WWW: http://members.gem.co.za/~theodor
Tel&Fax: +27-(0)21-975-4009
'There is no such thing as difficult,
just unknown...'
______________________~_~______________
Henrik Bäärnhielm <Henrik.B...@abc.se> wrote in article
<32795B...@abc.se>...
> Ben Sauvin wrote:
> > > Can I copy the DEFRAG program from my older software, and run it from
> > > the DOS prompt, in WINDOWS 95, without screwin something up ?
> > >
> > > I don't like WINDOW 95's DEFRAG program.
> > >
> > > Any info will be appreciated.
>
> > Windows 95, at least as installed on my machine, makes use of some
> > kind of creature called VFAT, which has something to do with the
> > filesystem (long file names at the very least), and is administered by a
> > similarly named device driver which rudely died on a friend's machine,
> > forcing re-install.
> >
> > What I DON'T know is if the VFAT is simply some kind of
> > superstructure, or if there's some fundamental difference between it and
> > the traditional FAT filesystem. If the two systems are NOT identically
> > structured (with the long file names being stored in some other file
> > similar in concept to OS/2's Extended Attributes files), then you may be
> > risking irrecoverable damage to your current setup. The defrag that came
> > with DOS 6.22 wouldn't know a VFAT from margarine.
>
> You shouldn't use your old Defrag if you don't disable long file names
> in Windows 95.
> VFAT is not a superstructure. It's one of the bad things with Win 95. As
> you know, the hard disk is divided into 65535 sectors, size depending on
> the size of the hard disk. A file takes up AT LEAST ONE sector. That is
> bad because small files take up more space than they should. The VFAT
> makes a new file for EACH file that has a long file name or if the file
> name is in lower-case letters where it stores information about the long
> filename. That file is as you probably understand very small but it goes
> under the same rules as other files on the hard disk as described above.
> So there are a lot of wasted disk space. It would have been better if
> the long filenames were stored in some kind of OS/2 way (descript.ion).
> Windows NT is better if you use NTFS but it's the same if you choose to
> have FAT system there also.
> Microsoft haven't made it good, but we have too live with it I suppose.
> :(
>
> Hope you got some answers.
>
> --
> ***************************************
> Internet : Henrik.B...@abc.se
> Fidonet : Henrik Baarnhielm, 2:201/235
> ***************************************
>
David Ullrich
How's that again? Who's being objective here - have you or have
you not heard of a person applying for a job as a musician and being
turned down because of poor math skills? An objective view would involve
a yes or no answer, not comments on "objective views".
The original question was a computer science student asking whether
he should take any math courses. Unless people here are simply lying,
people DO get turned down because of poor math skills when they apply for
programming jobs. When people start babbling nonsense about how musicians
need math too it seems like the question of whether employers ever look
at musicians' mathematical qualifications has something to do with whether
it's a valid comparison.
Now, if I said something like "you're still pissed off about flunking
algebra years ago, eh?" _that_ would not be very objective. See the
difference? Or if I asked how you professional programmers were coming with
your unallocated PChars. "Objective view from the ivory tower" indeed -
lemme know when you notice something I say is false; I'll appreciate it.
Until then don't give me this stuff about "objectivity" - it looks ridiculous.
Hmm, IF I assume that you ARE taking an objective view here it
follows that you DO know of a musician who wasn't hired because of lack
of mathematical ability. Is that what you actually meant to be asserting?
Everybody else: No, the tone of this is not very pleasant. Sue me.
I was talking about the facts - he was the one who started the personal stuff.
Demarcus
Jay Cole wrote:
>
> Graham Keellings <gra...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll pretty much agree with all that has been prviously stated, but will
> >disagree that any math at all is needed (although basic arithmetic is).
>
> >You guys all seem to be American, so maybe its a college requirement over
> >there. I got my degree in Great Britain, way back in 1980 & it certainly
> >wasn't necessary then. I also spent 7 years contracting in the states &
> >didn't notice a math requirement. Obviously, there will be some narrowly
> >specified positions which do require math, but there are greatly in the
> >minority. If you don't like math, don't take any Fortran courses & you'll
> >never qualify for math positions :-)
>
> Actually, in college I found two types of programmers, the Data
> Processing type folks and the Computer Science type folks. Don't read
> anything into the titles, these were simply the headers for our CS
> cirriculum options. The DP types did not have to have much math, but
> the CS had several upper level classes.
>
> Personally, I think the math opens up many other job opportunities to
> you that you wouldn't have without it. In addition, a good
> fundamental background in discrete math as well as calculus and
> numeric analysis allows you to design better/more-efficient software.
> Instead of programming and testing theories on algorithms, you can
> mathematically look at the O() notation and calculate how efficient
> your new algorithm is.
>
> >for me, the great advantage is travelling. I've worked in britain, the states,
> >germany & holland and am hoping for either australia or singapore/malaysia
> >next. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I look on it as paid vacation.
> >Several of my american colleagues who had always wanted to see europe came
> >over to germany to work & spend every weekend exploring europe. Work permits
> >are a slight problem, but not a major hurdle.
>
> When I recruit programmers, I either look for a strong practical
> background or a strong mathematical background. I find that EE's and
> Math/CS majors tend to make the best problem solvers. I also have to
> rank the self-taught way up there as to programming efficieny.
>
> >If you want to know whether this is the sort of work you want to do, a good
> >pointer is if you like puzzle solving. Doesn't matter whether jigsaw-,
> >crossword- or whatever, if you like worrying away at a problem, bit by bit
> >until you fully understand it, you're a likely candidate. If you find that
> >you often start new hobbies, projects, whatever & leave them 1/2 done, this
> >may not be the field for you.
>
> Boy, I gotta agree with this statement. The last 10-20% of the
> project is the most grueling and often you don't accomplish much in
> the way of coding. Polishing a project to bring to market is quite
> an undertaking and if you give up easily, your right, this IS NOT the
> field for you.
>
> Jay Cole
Do you know of what someone who has a CS degree can do besides
programming, because I feel I fall into this category?
Derek A. Benner
Mr. Sandman wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 09:35:07 +1100, Michael Urbaniak
> <urba...@sg.adisys.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Do Computer Science. I can't see any fun in working on bussiness or data
> >base stuff. This is boorriinngg .... And forget games. They are for
> >wimps only. Real men do Real Time embedded stuff, RT OS'es, comms,
> >assembly on RISCs etc. Thats were fun is (challenge I mean). And one
> >more thing, forget Micro$oft, do Unix, Unix rules. BTW forget Pascal, do
> >C or C++.
> >
> >Mike
>
> I'll use it much past HS. What are is real time embedded prog. and
> what are RISC's?
Well, you're supposed to say, 'G'wan. Pull the other leg. It's got
bells on!'
First, RT programming is writing programs to manage that little 4 or
8-bit cpu hiding in your toaster and solid-state electronic washing
machine. This kind of stuff has to have rapid response to external
inputs.
( Let's face facts here. The average programmer wouldn't notice a
keyboard read delay of less than a second. But, a toaster could give
your breakfast that wonderful carbon color if the cpu didn't shut off
the heater coils within 30-40 microseconds. Responding to such external
events AS FAST AS POSSIBLE is called 'real-time' response.)
Yes, you can get good work doing so. But how many RT programmers are
needed versus accounting/business/db programmers? Yep! The supply far
outweighs the demand!
As for RISC, the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) Alpha chip is a
RISC chip. So is the 602, 603 and 604 chipset used in the Macintosh
PowerPC. Not much need for RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer)
programmers out there either. Right now, best bet is CISC (Complex
Instruction Set Computer) programming for the Intel X86 chip family.
As for UNIX. Well, the world can always stand a few more eunuch
programmers. Please contact your primary care physician for details on
the procedures required.
Derek
<G>
Derek A. Benner
Demarcus wrote:
>
> Do you know of what someone who has a CS degree can do besides
> programming, because I feel I fall into this category?
Sure, any damn thing you want to! Any retail store will hire you for a
retail management training program as long as you have ANY kind of
sheepskin. Also, how about a teacher? We need more quality teachers.
Sure, the pay is bad, the classes miserable, the teaching supplies and
books garbage, but, what the hey! Think of all those unpaid 3-month
vacations!
Derek (Come to think of it, I'd rather stay a programmer!) Benner
Mr. Sandman
Charles Hyde
RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computer. That means there are fewer
machine opcodes for performing basic operations. This allows the CPU designer
to reduce the microcode logic and increase performance.
Real time embedded programming involves writing code for a given processor that
usually resides on a card, like the SCSI adapter. It requires the code be
developed extremely small, may not have much room for data, not much of an OS,
and must be burned into the chip. In effect, you become the OS for
the device you are to support. Therefore, it must run flawlessly because you
won't have a chance to upgrade in the field.
Charles Hyde
charle...@internetMCI.com
Matt Kennel
New Man (bantli...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: Alexandre,
: For the sake of the historical record, there was once a little boy named
: Albert whom his first teacher in school quickly picked out as one who would
: never amount to anything.
: This little boy was not good at math, in fact despised it. But he had a
: favorite uncle who loved to play mathematical games. And so, little Albert
: was drawn into grudging competence in mathematics.
I believe this is a fallacy, at least in mathematics Einstein was always good
at school.
It's nice to build up 'self esteem' but the reality is that 99% of
professional mathematicians and physicists were highly accomplished students
of mathematics in school.
Back to the subject at hand, whether mathematics is useful for programmers.
If programmers say "I almost never see a problem which requires higher math'
it doesn't mean that higher math is useless. In fact, the real benefit
comes about when somebody *sees* how some useful and clever abstraction can
lead to qualitatively superior solutions. Often people without experience in
math wouldn't have seen anything other than numbing bookkeeping in a
problem which might be expressible in a far more interesting and creative way.
A good freind of mine, a superb professional programmer and onetime physicist
has given me anecdotal examples of this.
--
Matthew B. Kennel/m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
Daniel Kang
>
> Oh well.. Perhaps someone will come up with SETVER for WIN95....
:)
>
> Chad
Actually, there is one. You can either edit Compatibility section in
win.ini or use MKCOMPAT program that'll edit win.ini settings. The
setting you want will probably be "Lie about window's version
number". I found this utility very useful and used to install legacy
apps (that say you need at least win3.1), but I couldn't find why it
wasn't documented in online-help. It's documented in resource kit,
though. Maybe Microsoft people don't want us to use old apps not
designed for win95.
Daniel Kang
> >No, you're wrong here. They are actually compatible. The only
thing
> >you need to do is to alter version settings in setver.exe (But why
> >would you do that?). There hasn't been an actual change in file
> >system until win95.
>
> Actually, that's not entirely true, versions earlier than 3.0
can't
> run on modern DOS OS's. Win 3.0 can't run on 3.1 and above, etc..
> the FAT system did change after DOS 3.x I believe also. Some of
the
> compatability problems can be handled by SERTVER because coders
seem
> some idiotic reason to check the OS version and instead of using a
> greater than or equal test, they used an equal test. However, a
lot
> of software depends on system services that rwere replaced later
> on in DOS versions.
That's true. File system did change after Dos 3.x, too. Sorry for
some misinformations but what I was trying to say is most of dos
accessories that refuses to run in other dos versions (tree.com,
mem.exe, etc) are able to run just by changing settings in setver.
David Ullrich
New Man wrote:
>
> Alexandre,
>
> For the sake of the historical record, there was once a little boy named
> Albert whom his first teacher in school quickly picked out as one who would
> never amount to anything.
>
> This little boy was not good at math, in fact despised it. But he had a
> favorite uncle who loved to play mathematical games. And so, little Albert
> was drawn into grudging competence in mathematics.
>
> university when the time came. He did manage to enroll in a technical
> school and get some training there.
>
> He fled his native country because of his fear of the wars there and the
> danger to him in its army.
>
> He came to a humble job in the Swiss patent office and within a few years
> in his spare time did the work that would revolutionize the scientific
> world, for, you see, little Albert's surname was Einstein.
New Man,
Whee! If I were you I wouldn't use my real name either. Einstein
was bad at mathematics, right. Actually he never studied anything - he didn't
really understand any classical physics, the idea that he was led to special
relativity by thinking about the fact that Maxwell's equations did not
transform properly under a change of reference frame is a myth - probably
started when people read the first sentence of the first big paper "The fact
that Maxwell's equations do not transform properly is well known" (or
words to that effect auf Deutsch.) In fact he only thought they didn't
transform properly because he really didn't understand how they worked, then
he just wrote down some equations at random and got lucky.
Then later when he had some thoughts on gravity he really didn't have
a clear conception of the equivalence principle. People think that he spent
years studying this bit of math and that bit of math, looking for the
proper framework for his thoughts on gravity, then when he found tensor
calculus he realized that that was gonna work, so he worked on learning
enough tensor calculus to allow him to formulate general relativity. That's
another myth - his grudging acceptance of mathematics wasn't up to it, again
he just sat there and when he was inspired he wrote something down at random,
somehow his random scribblings turned out to make sense.
You raise some excellent points <guffaw/chortle/wheeze/excuse me a
second I'm not laughing I'm choking, honest>, but the real question here is
whether Einstein was successful in his attempts to find employment as a
computer programmer. I think not.
("But seriously": Jeez. No, being good at math is not the same thing
as doing well in a math class. But the idea that Einstein was not good at
mathematics is ridiculous. He claimed that after the mathematicians got hold
of relativity he couldn't understand it any more, this may be one reason for
the popular idea that he wasn't good at math. But his cheek had as much tongue
room as any of our cheeks, and I also _suspect_ that before he said he didn't
understand something he'd have to study it until he understood it much
better than you and I understand 2+2=4 - he'd have to do that to be certain
he didn't understand it. And in any case citing this as a reason
Johnny should not worry about his math classes is utterly ridiculous, the
point being that regardless of whether it was in class or "in his spare time"
what Einstein did was study and work and study and learn and study and work
and then he would study some more. Then he would think about what he'd just
learned, then he'd go back and study and work. This is not anything like
what Johnny's been doing, or the question of whether he should worry about
math simply would not arise. The "in his spare time" makes it sound like
relativity is something Albert came up with when a apple fell on his head
while he was watching Forest Gump - that's simply not the way it happened.)
Jim Smitherman
just a little more to add to the thread. there's an interesting thread
happening in rec.music.compose now about composer 'day jobs.' it's
incredible how many of us have advanced degrees in music, and are
serious about and experienced with music composition, who are involved
professionally as computer programmers/consultants/analysts. virtually
everyone who has responded to the original article confesses to this.
Jim
DR MUSE
m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote:
>I believe this is a fallacy, at least in mathematics Einstein was always good
>at school.
Not so, me boy: Einstein was quite consistently a poor performer at school.
In fact, there is every reason to believe that he was dyslexic in early
school years.
But don't take my word for it. Look at Ronald W. Clark's biography
'Einstein: The Life and Times' and in particular at the first chapter
"German Boy." Clark's biography, originally published in 1971, is widely
available in paper copy.
Einstein quite early developed an attitude of opposition to authority of
any kind, and many have attributed his later achievements in large measure
to the attitude of skepticism which this engendered in him.
He became a precocious student of both physics and mathematics by the time
he was 12, virtually all of it away from the school and unconnected with
it.
The Clark biography, I might add, still makes for good reading as I found
this morning in checking my own perceptions.
Cheers!
Jay Johns, Phd
Jonathan W. Hendry
This being usenet, the data could be a bit skewed, since the
non-wired are not counted at all. That said, I think there
*are* a large number of programmer/musicians.
--
Jonathan W. Hendry President, Steel Driving Software, Inc.
OpenStep, Delphi, and Java Consulting in Cincinnati
http://www.steeldriving.com
DNRC Lord High Minister Of Binder Buffing
Jim Smitherman
Jonathan W. Hendry wrote:
> This being usenet, the data could be a bit skewed, since the
> non-wired are not counted at all. That said, I think there
> *are* a large number of programmer/musicians.
>
> --
that's true, it was mentioned as well by one the participants in that
thread. Without a reliable sampling, of course, it's little better than
guessing, but anecdotally, my experience with musicians is that they
have been among the first to be wired, given the long age
(comparitively) of electronic instruments. I have much the same
affectionate memories of my rhodes 88 epiano of the seventies that many
seem to have of their cp/m machine. These days, midi is ubiquitous,
it's almost impossible to be a musician and to not have a computer.
Like a plumber without a wrench. I think that's what snags us--it did
me--we get these machines to make music with, and become entranced by
the machines themselves.
Victoria Ho
New Man wrote:
>
> Alexandre,
>
> For the sake of the historical record, there was once a little boy named
> Albert whom his first teacher in school quickly picked out as one who would
> never amount to anything.
>
> This little boy was not good at math, in fact despised it. But he had a
> favorite uncle who loved to play mathematical games. And so, little Albert
> was drawn into grudging competence in mathematics.
>
> He continued to be no great success in school and was unable to qualify for
> university when the time came. He did manage to enroll in a technical
> school and get some training there.
>
> He fled his native country because of his fear of the wars there and the
> danger to him in its army.
>
> He came to a humble job in the Swiss patent office and within a few years
> in his spare time did the work that would revolutionize the scientific
> world, for, you see, little Albert's surname was Einstein.
Actually, Einstein was a poor performer in school and I read in an
article in the newspaper that he was mentally retarded at a young age.
Ed Vander Hoek
Demarcus <dem...@series2000.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Do you know of what someone who has a CS degree can do besides
>programming, because I feel I fall into this category?
How about tech support, consulting, technical writer (manuals, help
files, etc)?
David Ullrich
Jim Smitherman wrote:
>
> These days, midi is ubiquitous,
> it's almost impossible to be a musician and to not have a computer.
> Like a plumber without a wrench.
Precisely what do we mean by "musician"? You seem to be talking
about composers - what I had in mind previously was the typical performing
musician. I wouldn't know, surely the number is somewhat higher than it
was years ago when I would have known, but what percentage of, say,
professional violinists would you guess own computers (and use them in
ways that have something to do with their musical work)?
Shaun Rumbell
Chad Douglas wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > James Logajan <jam...@netcom.com> a écrit dans l'article
> > <jameslE0...@netcom.com>...
> > > Jack Dorland (sylva...@geocities.com) wrote:
> > > [elided]
> > > : Every new version of DOS (as it is, no new versions of DOS are being
> > > : created) is backwards compatible.
> > > [elided]
> > >
> > > If memory serves me, there was a distinct break in compatability in going
> > > from DOS 1.x to DOS 2.x. DOS 2 was not backward comptable with DOS 1.
> > >
> > So, every new version of DOS created but DOS 2.0 is backwards compatible.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Dos is a strange animal. With the exception of DOS 1-2, Programs
> designed for an older version of DOS will run on a newer version. There
> are some exceptions to this rule, however, but its not because of DOS.
>
> Several programs checked the DOS version to make sure they could run
> properly. When they were coded, either through ignorance or planned
> obsolencence, programmers would tell the program "If it is not DOS 3.1,
> don't run." This works fine unless you aren't running DOS 3.1. If you
> are running DOS 3.0, then the program behaves properly, because there
> might be some new feature of DOS 3.1 that 3.0 cannot do. However, this
> causes interesting problems if you are using DOS 3.2. Since DOS 3.2 is
> fully backward-compatible with DOS 3.1, then there is no reason for the
> program to abort, but since it is not DOS 3.1, it aborts with an
> "incorrect DOS version" error. That's where SETVER is handy. It will
> lie to programs that REQUIRE a specific release of DOS to run.
>
> The best fix is for programmers to tell their programs "Don't run unless
> this is DOS 3.1 OR HIGHER." Most of today's programmers know about this
> problem and avoid it, but I have already encountered it in Windows 95.
> I have a few old Windows 3.1 apps that bomb, saying that you must have
> Windows 3.1 in order to run them...
>
> Oh well.. Perhaps someone will come up with SETVER for WIN95.... :)
>
In the system directory is a little program called MKCompat.exe.
It enables you to (amongst other things) tell Windows95 to lie about
it's version number. There's no documentation for it but I expect you've
seen the compatability settings in Win.Ini. These can be set by the
aforementioned program.
Hope it helps.
Shaun
Shaun....@Controls.Eurotherm.Co.UK.
Bengt Kleberg
In article <3286B0...@mgs.sch.edu.sg>, Victoria Ho <vict...@mgs.sch.edu.sg> writes:
>New Man wrote:
>>
>> Alexandre,
>>
>> For the sake of the historical record, there was once a little boy named
>> Albert whom his first teacher in school quickly picked out as one who would
>> never amount to anything.
>>
>> This little boy was not good at math, in fact despised it. But he had a
>> favorite uncle who loved to play mathematical games. And so, little Albert
>> was drawn into grudging competence in mathematics.
>>
There is the misconception that Mr Einstein was bad at math in school.
This is due to the fact that the grade system changed. The previous top
grade was now the lowest. So, Mr Einstein had a top grade and was very
good at math.
--
Best Wishes, Bengt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: Bengt....@enea.se (Enea Data AB, Sweden)
Disclaimer: Nothing abovementioned has any connection to Enea Data AB
``At the moment money does indeed make the world go round but unfortunately
the direction of that applied rotation is all downhill.'' fle...@netreach.net
Rosemary from Montreal
In article <553sov$j...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jay Cole <jay...@bgn.mindspring.com> wrote:
>Personally, I think the math opens up many other job opportunities to
>you that you wouldn't have without it. In addition, a good
>fundamental background in discrete math as well as calculus and
>numeric analysis allows you to design better/more-efficient software.
>Instead of programming and testing theories on algorithms, you can
>mathematically look at the O() notation and calculate how efficient
>your new algorithm is.
Would some kind soul please tell me who actually uses Big O notation (or
any of its variants) in the real world?
I'm working on my bachelor of computer science, and i've been a
programmer for about 4 years. Concordia University seems to be the only
place i have seen any mention of Big O notation -- in all my jobs (and
i've had a few of them), no one ever used it or referred to it.
The people i work for/with are more interested in results than in
efficient under-the-hood workings. That isn't to say they are not
interested in efficiency, but generally i am given the impression that
whatever road you take is fine, as long as you get to the desired
destination.
I don't find much of the math i'm taking in this programme (calculus, discrete, whatever else is to
come) terribly practical. My idea of a "useful math course" is accounting.
(My sweetheart, a Master's in applied math who teaches math & physics,
naturally would disagree.)
rosemary
kiy...@ibm.net
In <3282B3...@pacbell.net>, "Derek A. Benner" <dbe...@pacbell.net> writes:
>Mr. Sandman wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 09:35:07 +1100, Michael Urbaniak
>> <urba...@sg.adisys.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Do Computer Science. I can't see any fun in working on bussiness or data
>> >base stuff. This is boorriinngg .... And forget games. They are for
>> >wimps only. Real men do Real Time embedded stuff, RT OS'es, comms,
>> >assembly on RISCs etc. Thats were fun is (challenge I mean). And one
>> >more thing, forget Micro$oft, do Unix, Unix rules. BTW forget Pascal, do
>> >C or C++.
>> >
>> >Mike
>>
>> No kidding. Pascal is a pretty decent learning language, but I doubt
>> I'll use it much past HS. What are is real time embedded prog. and
>> what are RISC's?
>
>bells on!'
>
If you're serious about working in this field, ratchet your skills way
up. Get real good with a compiler language, C/C++ is OK, an assembly
language for the times that you have to code down to the bare metal, and
an interpreter for building throwaway tools, I use Rexx but
JAVA is probably a good choice today.
If you're real serious, get all the state engine theory you can.
State engines are the most power design tool I've encountered. To do
state engines, you need combinatorics, discrete math, set theory,
graph theory, compiler design. State engines are the key to language
theory, AI, database internals, operating system performance,
complexity, optimization, very, very important stuff. You can't
understand state engines until you do list processing which requires a
programming language with pointers.
The rest of it isn't very important and is easy to pick up. Stuff like
Sybase, Access, VB, Powerbuilder, Windows, Novell, system
administration, ...not a big deal.
If you have these basics, you can do realtime work, games, big systems,
little systems, do it all and do it better; if you have the basics.
Cory Hamasaki Kiyo Design, Inc http://www.kiyoinc.com
HHResearch Co. 11 Annapolis St. OS/2 Webstore & Newsletter
REDWOOD Annapolis, Md, 21401 (410) 280-1942
Max F Lang
> > just a little more to add to the thread. there's an interesting thread
> > happening in rec.music.compose now about composer 'day jobs.' it's
> > incredible how many of us have advanced degrees in music, and are
> > serious about and experienced with music composition, who are involved
> > professionally as computer programmers/consultants/analysts. virtually
> > everyone who has responded to the original article confesses to this.
This is interesting. I just got back from a weekend in Boulder, visiting
my sister doing
grad work at the University of Colorado. It appears from flipping
through their course listings that one can do CS and some Engineering
degrees and also do a Music degree at the same time, sort of a double
study program. It surprised me at first, but on thinking about it, it
does make sense. Some of the finest engineers, scientists and
programmers I know are also excellent musicians. One is a jazz pianist
at night, and a staid mathmetician during the daylight hours.
/\/\ax
Ian Gay
In article <56ajm5$d...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
ra_...@alcor.concordia.ca (Rosemary from Montreal) wrote:
>In article <553sov$j...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
>
>The people i work for/with are more interested in results than in
>efficient under-the-hood workings. That isn't to say they are not
>interested in efficiency, but generally i am given the impression that
>whatever road you take is fine, as long as you get to the desired
>destination.
So you'll write them an O(n^2) sort routine, and it'll work fine because
they're only sorting 100 items. Then next year they'll use your routine to
sort a million items.....
Stuart McLachlan
In article <567vah$5...@fountain.mindlink.net> ed_van...@mindlink.bc.ca (Ed Vander Hoek) writes:
>From: ed_van...@mindlink.bc.ca (Ed Vander Hoek)
>Subject: Re: being a Systems Programmer/Analyst needs Math ????
>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:28:13 GMT
or ask customers "Would you like fries with that?" :-)
--
LEXACORP Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Qld Australia
Dataflex/MSAccess/VB Systems Development
Adam James Fitzpatrick
I would've thought that the meaning of O(n^2) was taught in Computer
Science, not Mathematics. I don't recall it being mentioned in any
maths lectures I've been to this year, but it is referred to in the
computer science course. IMHO the mathematics I'm forced to do is a
waste of time, since so much of it is irrelevant, and what is relevant
ends up being almost retaught by the CS lecturers.
--
Adam Fitzpatrick
"It'd be alright if he actually *washed* it."
Jim Smitherman
Max F Lang wrote:
>> my earlier comments snipped
>
> This is interesting. I just got back from a weekend in Boulder, visiting
> my sister doing
> grad work at the University of Colorado. It appears from flipping
> through their course listings that one can do CS and some Engineering
> degrees and also do a Music degree at the same time, sort of a double
> study program. It surprised me at first, but on thinking about it, it
> does make sense. Some of the finest engineers, scientists and
> programmers I know are also excellent musicians. One is a jazz pianist
> at night, and a staid mathmetician during the daylight hours.
>
Al Stevens, a writer for Dr Dobbs Journal (C Programming Column) calls
music 'my other profession.' He has an interesting article in oct. 96
issue dealing in part with a midi program he wrote, MidiFitz: " . . is
a MIDI program that reads an 88-key keyboard, presumably bing played by
a jazz pianist, parses the notes into chords in real time, and plays a
matching bass line." Neat trick, my understanding of C++ isn't yet
sufficiently deep to follow the coding, but I'll get there.
I have this idea that I'll go back in a few years to university and work
on a phd in some kind of combination computer/music. Over the past 6
years I've come to regard my computer as my instrument. The only way to
get the most out of it, is the same as any instrument, you have to dig
into it, and grub out its potentials, bit by bit (no pun intended).
Jim
John Saunders
James Logajan <jam...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<jameslE0...@netcom.com>...
> Ian Gay (g...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> : So you'll write them an O(n^2) sort routine, and it'll work fine
because
> : they're only sorting 100 items. Then next year they'll use your routine
to
> : sort a million items.....
>
> I have never seen O() notation used outside of a computer science text,
> and while it isn't really needed by many people in the computer industry,
it
> is essential that programmers understand and USE the results of
complexity
> theory. (At least it was called complexity theory in my school; a
horrible
> name, IMHO).
James,
If it was "essential" for me to understand and use the results of
complexity theory, then I wouldn't have survived as a programmer for 20
years.
I guess it's not essential for everyone.
--
John Saunders
j...@jws.ultranet.com
Richard A. O'Keefe
ra_...@alcor.concordia.ca (Rosemary from Montreal) writes:
>Would some kind soul please tell me who actually uses Big O notation (or
>any of its variants) in the real world?
When I worked at Quintus, we had one customer whose program took
about 20 hours instead of 5 seconds because they _hadn't_ used Big-Oh.
We had another whose program took O(2**(2**N)) time, and with our
help they were able to get that down to O(2**N), which made the difference
between "forget it" and "can solve the problem we need solved".
>I'm working on my bachelor of computer science, and i've been a
>programmer for about 4 years. Concordia University seems to be the only
>place i have seen any mention of Big O notation -- in all my jobs (and
>i've had a few of them), no one ever used it or referred to it.
>The people i work for/with are more interested in results than in
>efficient under-the-hood workings. That isn't to say they are not
>interested in efficiency, but generally i am given the impression that
>whatever road you take is fine, as long as you get to the desired
>destination.
Ouch. No wonder there is so much bloated inefficient software out there.
I am serious about that.
>I don't find much of the math i'm taking in this programme (calculus, discrete, whatever else is to
>come) terribly practical.
I have a BSc(hons) in Statistics, which includes a lot of other maths.
There is only *one* mathematics subject I ever took that I haven't put
to use in programming, and that was the one on Spinor Calculus.
>My idea of a "useful math course" is accounting.
That is an *extremely* useful course.
But it's stretching things pretty far to call it "math".
A lot of accountancy is law.
--
Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote!
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.
Alan M. Evans
Adam James Fitzpatrick wrote:
> IMHO the mathematics I'm forced to do is a
> waste of time, since so much of it is irrelevant, and what is relevant
> ends up being almost retaught by the CS lecturers.
Has anybody here ever taken a history class? Was it _relevent_? Probably
not. But understanding history changes the way one thinks. That's the
point.
In the same way, a comprehensive understanding of mathmatic pronciples
changes the way one approaches a particular problem. Whether or not one
is employing exactly the principles one has learned.
As a simple example:
Is understanding multiplication relevant? Imagine how differently two
people might approach the problem of counting grouped objects if only
one understood multiplication.
A more "relevent" example:
Some years ago I was working on a set of scripts for dealing with a
large database. One script which involved deleting records scattered
throughout a table was taking way too long. At first, I was using the
Run-Through-The-Table-And-Delete-The-Necessary-Records method. Then I
tried several versions involving sorting the table before deleting
records, but none were quite fast enough to meet the requirement.
Another consultant then made a suggestion which involved employing a bit
of math to the problem of deciding which records to delete. This yielded
a thousandfold increase in performance. Was math necessary to solve the
problem of deleting records. No; my client would have believed me if I
said that I had squeazed every bit of performance out of the current
system and would have gone on to consider new hardware as a solution.
Understanding math changed the way I approached the problem.
Looking back on my education, I don't think any of the math classes I
took were a waste of time, except for the ones in which I wasn't paying
attention.
AME
Jim Smitherman
David Ullrich wrote:
>
> Jim Smitherman wrote:
> >
> > These days, midi is ubiquitous,
> > it's almost impossible to be a musician and to not have a computer.
> > Like a plumber without a wrench.
>
> Precisely what do we mean by "musician"? You seem to be talking
> about composers - what I had in mind previously was the typical performing
> musician. I wouldn't know, surely the number is somewhat higher than it
> was years ago when I would have known, but what percentage of, say,
> professional violinists would you guess own computers (and use them in
> ways that have something to do with their musical work)?
>
> --
I'm not sure exactly what typical is. I was a typical performing
musician myself, until I got tired of irregular pay (this took 30 odd
years, when you're young being a starving artist has a degree of
romanticism that later wears think). I compose too, though. I think a
lot of composers are also performers. For a violinist or other
instrumentalist who does no composing, the use of a computer is probably
less attractive, but a midi equipped machine is still a useful practise
companion for solo players of nonmidi instruments (I earned a fair
amount by recording midi files for such, 'music minus 1' kinds of
things) and for whatever notational occasions might arise. Those who
submitted to college programs would have found a machine useful for
writing the many analytical and musicological papers such a degree
program calls for (using wordprocessing and notation software at the
least), and this would be where many noncomposing musicians would have
been introduced to computers.
Jim
mikew@net-link.net@net-link.net
In <mlRiyQgd...@ug.cs.su.oz.au>, afit...@ug.cs.su.oz.au (Adam James Fitzpatrick) writes:
>g...@sfu.ca (Ian Gay) wrote:
>>ra_...@alcor.concordia.ca (Rosemary from Montreal) wrote:
>
>>>efficient under-the-hood workings. That isn't to say they are not
>>>interested in efficiency, but generally i am given the impression that
>>>whatever road you take is fine, as long as you get to the desired
>>>destination.
>
>>they're only sorting 100 items. Then next year they'll use your routine to
>>sort a million items.....
>
>Science, not Mathematics. I don't recall it being mentioned in any
>maths lectures I've been to this year, but it is referred to in the
>waste of time, since so much of it is irrelevant, and what is relevant
>ends up being almost retaught by the CS lecturers.
It usually is, but unless you have taken at least some heavy duty algebra
(or better yet, some calculus) you won't know understand what it means
or how to figure out what Order you algorithm is. However, I think most
college CS programs require a lot of math. Mine (Western Michigan University
if anybody cares) includes a math minor.
Thant Tessman
David Ullrich wrote:
[...]
> The original question was a computer science student asking whether
> he should take any math courses. Unless people here are simply lying,
> people DO get turned down because of poor math skills when they apply for
> programming jobs.
[...]
The point people are trying to make is that skill in math and fomal training
in math are not necessarily the same thing. Math is a very important skill
to have to be a good programmer. The problem is that math teachers have an
amazing ability to make an otherwise fascinating subject seem obscure and
irrelevant.
Most of the math I've learned came from doing 3D computer graphics and other
kinds of programming. The rest I learned as a student of physics, not math.
And in the physics department they had a saying: Mathematics is masturbation,
physics is sex.
Math is indeed the key to the universe. Just don't let academia fool you into
thinking they have the only copy.
-thant
--
Thant Tessman <th...@shoreline-studios.com>
http://www.shoreline-studios.com
Thant Tessman
I wrote:
[...]
> And in the physics department they had a saying: Mathematics is
> masturbation, physics is sex.
>
> Math is indeed the key to the universe. Just don't let academia
> fool you into thinking they have the only copy.
Or for that matter that they know where to stick it.