On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:33:51 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> wrote: : Non-programmers should be able to program?
That was not really what I suggested; I was primarily talking about reading programs and commenting on formulæ and algorithms. : Should non-doctors be able to doctor? If I were God, I might consider simplifying the anatomy to allow that, yes. : Should cars be built so that : anyone can intuitively fix them without a mechanic? Should trucks be : built so that drivers don't have to learn how to split shift? That's out of my area so I don't know. However, contrary to software, I have never seen any use of rebuilding the car to do something other than transport ... And, besides, as mechanics do not design cars or even engines, they are not analogous to programmers, but rather to computer technicians (maintenance, deployment, installation, etc). : Why is : programming so different that we can't expect people to actually learn : their discipline? It is not different from other engineering disciplines, where you would have to interact with experts from other disciplines, and understand and comment on their designs. That's the way to build a /system/. Say, you want to create the software to make weather forcasts. At the end of the day, that's programming, but no way that's going to be a task for programmers alone. You need mathematicians, algorithm theorists, physicists, programmers, and multiple specialisations within each discipline. If you can make your programs clear enough to be used as a language of communications, you will simplify the development, and allow the code to be validated by those who knows how the computation has to be done without specialising in talking to the computer. : This discussion is giving me some insight into some of the crap : programming I see these days. I wonder if you would do a better job at programming the software to crack equations from quantum physics than the physicist :-) -- :-- Hans Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
