<snip> (Don't ask that question of an academic; the answer will leave you nonplussed.) </snip>
Or nauseated. ;-) Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Shein Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Curiosity Agree. As a footnote, I would add that my experience parallels yours: the practical stuff got me a life, and the theory came in handy much later on when I became a sysprog and then a product author for vendors. Theory AND skills -- both, both, both. Balance, balance, balance. Anyway, of what use is the theory if you can't put it to work? (Don't ask that question of an academic; the answer will leave you nonplussed.) David At 11:15 AM 6/29/2006 -0500, you wrote: > Absolutely correct in that balance is needed. When I got my degree in >computer sciences back in the early '80s, I actually got both. The >first 2 years was teaching programming languages and more of the "pay >the bills" stuff. The last 2 years was spent teaching the theory-type >classes, OS theory, compiler design, and so on. When I got to the real >world I used the training I had in the programming languages. Later, >when I got moved into systems, I was able to put the theory to use in >order to understand what MVS was doing under the covers. I didn't have >any specific MVS training, but the theoretical knowledge I got made the >OJT much easier. > >Today, as was mentioned, we get script kiddies who have no knowledge of >what actually makes the boxes tick. The stuff still has to get >translated into 1's and 0's for the box to work with and we're losing >the ability to get there. > >My $.02. > >Rex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
