I wish that economic issues played a major role in what was taught.
All this mathematical purity nonsense needs to be ditched ASAP (there
are way too many failed mathematicians teaching computing).

Can you elaborate on this?

Creating software is often an exercise in cost/benefit.
Students tend to be taught a black and white world, i.e., this
is good thats bad.
For instance, cloning is bad and refactoring is good.  Both of
these statements can be false in some circumstances.

If we're interested in the psychology of programming,
we have to be interested in what programming *is*.

More importantly we have to be interested in cognitive psychology.
Where is that taught in software engineering courses (not the pop-sci
stuff that gets dropped into conversations).

and there seems to be no difference between open source software
and commercial software except for price.  There seem to be a lot
of Svens out there.  (Scott Adams' "I think software should HURT
the user" Sven.)

From the users perspective, why should there be any difference?
I know the open source folk like to think that their software cures all
known ills, but who is foolish enough to believe that?

Derek M. Jones           Software analysis
tel: +44 (0)1252 520667

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PPIG 
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send an email to
For more options, visit

Reply via email to