The real reason is that programming is an art, not a science... Can't certify art...
Dave Crozier wrote: >Hal wrote: > >"...A thorough understanding of algorithmic principles, database, some math, >regression, ETHICS, etc. is what should qualify someone to be a computer >professional" > >TOTALLY WRONG Hal I'm afraid. The thing that qualifies someone to be a >computer professional in its true sense (where software is concerned anyhow) >is the ability to write GOOD software, and the definition of good will >change depending upon the environment you are working in. Good in an >emergency situation is a fix that works and gets the system live again >however it is done. Good in a production environment means reliable and >stable. Good in a performance dictated situation means fast and reliable. > >It's just like driving. All drivers make mistakes, the difference between a >good driver and a bad driver is that the good driver will always know >whenever he/she has made a mistake and the majority of outsiders/onlookers >will never ever notice the mistake. The bad driver is just a danger to >others because he doesn't understand the ramification(s) of making a mistake >- or even worse, what a "mistake" constitutes. > >Remember you don’t have to be able to read music to be a great musician. >I'll take natural talent as opposed to paper qualifications any day of the >week. Try and teach dancing to someone who has no sense of rhythm and you'll >see exactly what I mean. > >Having all the paper qualifications only gives you a head start in the >"ability to understand basic methodology" but there is absolutely NO >substitute for experience and natural ability in this business. > >Dave Crozier > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >Of Hal Kaplan >Sent: 17 January 2007 20:55 >To: ProFox Email List >Subject: RE: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Naughty! > > >=> And the second problem is that all of the folks in the biz >=> would want to be grandfathered in. Who in their right mind >=> would submit to having to gain credentials (that they may or >=> may not be qualified to earn) to do what they've been doing >=> for the last 10 or 20 years? >=> >=> So, just like the answer about how God created the world in >=> 6 days.... >=> He didn't have to worry about the installed base. >=> >=> Whil >=> > >During those 6 days, G-d did not create the AMA, ABA, AIA, AICPA, or any >other professional group except perhaps for clergy. > >The "installed base" existed for all of these professions and it is now all >a matter of history. Some practioners fared better than others but on the >whole society gained. BTW, you do not need a degree in architecture to be >an architect, or a law degree to be an attorney (I am not sure about >medicine and accounting). You can become a licensed professional through >well-documented experience. Of course you still need to take and pass the >state licensing exam. And I dare say that if a similarly-structured >arrangement existed for people like us, a good number would pass the exam >and gain "grandfather" status, others would fail, and still others would >walk away or do nothing because the effective date for all of the lead-ins >to congeal would probably be 6 to 10 years off. > >What is needed to achieve widespread licensing is a catalyst such as a >massive lapse of public safety or security that could be laid at the feet of >the profession as it exists today. > >There are no questions of impartiality or any nonsense like that. Those >arguments are specious. All professions have competing suppliers who will >do almost anything to get and keep business ... ruthlessly and illegally >too! But the basics of these professions: the chemistry of life, anatomy, >legal precedent, torts, etc. are independent of commercialism. Intel and >AMD may be making a lot of bits, but they did not invent them. A thorough >understanding of algorithmic principles, database, some math, regression, >ETHICS, etc. is what should qualify someone to be a computer professional. > >B+ >HALinNY > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
