Re: Career questions: databases
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:58:17 -0700
On Jul 2, 12:55 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
That's fine, Morgan. I was only suggesting everyone has a subjective view, including you, me and just about anyone. You're perfectly entitled to think in that fashion as a human being, just as I am to disagree. No offense intended to anyone.
> Someone writing this can get the job done:
> [some bad code] ...
> I guarantee you it will get the job done. And I would consider the
> person that wrote it mediocre or worse if they didn't write it as an
> example of bad code.
You're right, but what if the client has worse taste? Anything is possible. But yeah, I do agree, that's pretty bad code.
> Again I disagree. What matters after one passes the test for minimal
> competency is does it meet the SLA. Is it secure, for example from
> SQL Injection, does it minimize disk i/o, does it minimize parses,
> does it minimize undo. These are not things done by those who consider
> SQLCODE = 0 a success.
Again, I agree, and thrice times over. But I don't want to introduce a new debate on "competence" here. Unfortunately, this isn't my debate as I realize the question's I asked haven't been answered. You came up with a pretty response the last time, so this is for the others.
> I couldn't disagree more. Avid <> Competent. And the number of those who
> are at the "top of the game," in my experience, does not justify your
Okay, fine with me, but then again that's how I feel and I have a right to feel that way.
> What's wrong with accepting the definition of the word as defined in
> the dictionary? Have you considered a career in politics? <g>
I don't have a problem. As you may realize, it's not me who started this "proficiency" issue. As for dictionary definitions, you (and everyone) should realize that the world of definitions and terminology doesn't end with pocket or concise versions of well-known dictionaries. For instance, there's a "shorter" version of the Oxford dictionary that has two really fat and large volumes. The real (i.e. complete) Oxford dictionary spans 20+ really fat and large volumes. Delve that deep into wordplay and you're bound to find out synonyms are easily misinterpreted and overestimated.
Why does the question even pop-up? Your or just about anyone's knowledge, feeling and judgments don't determine what's right or proper regarding any issue.
> > There are zillions of people alive and kicking who can know everything
> > by the book and deliver flawless code if given the chance...
Read: I said who can know "everything by the book" and "deliver flawless code". The first case is difficult, but not impossible. I believe you really learn about things when you engage in a hands-on experience. Dennis Ritchie commented 20 years after he developed the language: "I'm still learning C". That's my kind of perspective, and maybe you share that to some extent. Heck, it's easy to learn everything what's on print, but it's what's not on print that's hard to learn. Since we're all happy about words here, there's a word for it: experience.
"deliver flawless code": code that simply is bug-free, adheres more or less to standards and does the trick.
Note: I believe guys like you and many other pounding this thread go beyond that category. Surely with so many years behind your belt ("experience" again) you're better than that, full stop.
As you realize, knowers of everything by the book and deliverers of flawless code aren't really that proficient or expert by your standards. Whether or not you believe that there are many people ("zillions" was definitely being casual, not a literal statement, read "many" instead) who have it in them to take that level of proficiency or expertise to the next level if they're provided with better opportunities to hone their skills -- is your philosophy.
Once again, for anyone else reading this post: my questions from the previous post. Received on Mon Jul 02 2007 - 11:58:17 CEST