Real Computer Scientists Don't Write Code

Real Computer Scientists Don't Write Code

Real computer scientists don't write code. They occasionally tinker with
'programming systems', but those are so high level that they hardly count
(and rarely count accurately; precision is for applications.)

Real computer scientists don't comment their code.  The identifiers are
so long they can't afford the disk space.

Real computer scientists don't write the user interfaces, they merely
argue over what they should look like.

Real computer scientists don't eat quiche. They shun Schezuan food
since the hackers discovered it. Many real computer scientists consider
eating an implementation detail. (Others break down and eat with the
hackers, but only if they can have ice cream for desert.)

If it doesn't have a programming environment complete with interactive
debugger, structure editor and extensive cross module type checking,
real computer scientists won't be seen tinkering with it. They may
have to use it to balance their checkbooks, as their own systems can't.

Real computer scientists don't program in assembler.  They don't write in
anything less portable than a number two pencil.

Real computer scientists don't debug programs, they dynamically modify
them. This is safer, since no one has invented a way to do anything
dynamic to FORTRAN, COBOL or BASIC.

Real computer scientists like C's structured constructs, but they are
suspicious of it because its compiled. (Only Batch freaks and efficiency
weirdos bother with compilers, they're soooo un-dynamic.)

Real computer scientists play go. They have nothing against the concept
of mountain climbing, but the actual climbing is an implementation
detail best left to programmers.

Real computer scientists admire ADA for its overwhelming aesthetic value,
but they find it difficult to actually program in, as it is much too
large to implement. Most Computer scientists don't notice this because
they are still arguing over what else to add to ADA.

Real computer scientists work from 5 pm to 9 am because that's the only
time they can get the 8 megabytes of main memory they need to edit
specs. (Real work starts around 2 am when enough MIPS are free for
their dynamic systems.) Real computer scientists find it hard to share
3081s when they are doing 'REAL' work.

Real computer scientists only write specs for languages that might run
on future hardware. Nobody trusts them to write specs for anything
homo sapiens will ever be able to fit on a single planet.

Real computer scientists like planning their own environments to use
bit mapped graphics. Bit mapped graphics is great because no one can
afford it, so their systems can be experimental.

Real computer scientists regret the existence of PL/I, PASCAL and LISP.
ADA is getting there, but it is still allows people to make mistakes.

Real computer scientists love the concept of users. Users are always
real impressed by the stuff computer scientists are talking about;
it sure sounds better than the stuff they are being forced to use now.

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines
are so poor at I/O.

Real computer scientists love conventions. No one is expected to lug
a 3081 attached to a bit map screen to a convention, so no one will
ever know how slow their systems run.