On Sun, 2015-02-22 at 20:02 +, Imran Chaudhry wrote:
People under-estimate the amount of good
communication skills you need as a developer
Aye. Frustratingly, though, techies almost always get pigeon-holed into
the geeky, nerdy, cannot communicate stereotype until they've proved
On Sun, 2015-02-22 at 19:29 +, Samuel Penn wrote:
On Sunday 22 Feb 2015 17:52:23 Stephen Davies wrote:
No one taught me all this stuff. There are no University Courses or real
'how to Text Books' on the subject.
The job description does not fit into tidy little boxes. Some employers
G'day Gordon,
On 23 Feb 2015, at 12:16, Gordon Scott wrote:
Then again, it also seems to me that we've not really progressed very
far with tools. Lisp(58!), Prolog(72), Smalltalk(80), perl(87), tcl(88),
Python(89+), Java(91), Ruby(99).
I can't speak for the other languages in your list but
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 12:49 +, Brad Macpherson wrote:
G'day Gordon,
On 23 Feb 2015, at 12:16, Gordon Scott wrote:
Then again, it also seems to me that we've not really progressed very
far with tools. Lisp(58!), Prolog(72), Smalltalk(80), perl(87), tcl(88),
Python(89+), Java(91),
Incidentally, of course, code generation doesn't necessarily need AI to
work.
Some years ago I was working with/on telephone exchange design, and
telephone system's are defined in no small part using formalised
structured language, notably UML and SDL. The UML was a tool largely to
help formalise
On 19 February 2015 at 12:05, Vic l...@beer.org.uk wrote:
10 years from now
we will simply ask a machine to write software for us
I first heard that argument some 40 years ago. It wasn't true then, and it
isn't true now. The reason for this is simple - code generation is a
purely mechanical
Writing Software is IMHO just the proverbial tip of the Iceberg.
Let me put some of what I'm going to say into some sort of context.
I've spent the better part of my working life (now at 46years) doing
what is called Systems Integration.
Basically making stuff work together. There is a
On 22 February 2015 at 11:45, James Courtier-Dutton james.dut...@gmail.com
wrote:
What is missing is the AI to read and understand my spreadsheet or
document like a developer would.
I.e. Read a document that is not written in source code, and be able
to understand it as well as if they were
On Sunday 22 Feb 2015 17:52:23 Stephen Davies wrote:
No one taught me all this stuff. There are no University Courses or real
'how to Text Books' on the subject.
The job description does not fit into tidy little boxes. Some employers
and especially recruitment agencies just can't grok that
I understand this reference and I saw the episode Ship in a Bottle
just the other day.
This is a interesting topic, yes it will happen someday. In fact I
think in the future we will have AI's do most of the decision making
for us in life - just like in Iain M. Banks Culture novels. So not
in 10
sharing this x group because it that good.
On 19 Feb 2015, at 07:56, Phillip Bicknell wrote:
On 18 February 2015 at 23:47, Lisi Reisz wrote:
Qualifications are all very well, but they often don't measure the ability to
think and create.
Because education stands accused of quashing
10 years from now
we will simply ask a machine to write software for us
I first heard that argument some 40 years ago. It wasn't true then, and it
isn't true now. The reason for this is simple - code generation is a
purely mechanical process, but defining the solution to the problem space
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 13:13 +, Joseph Bennie wrote:
I think it will then deserve it's name “Lucy.
It’s moral essence however, will only be a reflection of ourselves.
FWIW, I've long that intelligent machines may be the next significant
phase of human evolution. I'm not convinced that
There was an AI program released in the early 80s called The
Last One, so named because it would be the last program one would need to
buy (it created programs for you).
By coincidence, I was chatting to a former user of that just the other
night. It was quite good, by his account. But it
On 19 Feb 2015, at 12:05, Vic l...@beer.org.uk wrote:
10 years from now
we will simply ask a machine to write software for us
I first heard that argument some 40 years ago. It wasn't true then, and it
isn't true now. The reason for this is simple - code generation is a
purely
On 19 Feb 2015, at 13:27, Gordon Scott gor...@gscott.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 13:13 +, Joseph Bennie wrote:
I think it will then deserve it's name “Lucy.
It’s moral essence however, will only be a reflection of ourselves.
FWIW, I've long that intelligent machines may be
On 19/02/15 14:09, Lisi wrote:
On Thursday 19 February 2015 13:27:16 Gordon Scott wrote:
FWIW, I've long that intelligent machines may be the next significant
phase of human evolution. I'm not convinced that evolution demands that
we stay in our original physical shell.
Without our shells we
On Thursday 19 February 2015 13:27:16 Gordon Scott wrote:
FWIW, I've long that intelligent machines may be the next significant
phase of human evolution. I'm not convinced that evolution demands that
we stay in our original physical shell.
Without our shells we are not us.
But I too have
On Wednesday 18 February 2015 16:37:45 Jay Bennie wrote:
the idea that kids need to be taught to type or surf the web is laughable.
I thought that that was the whole point of this goverment initiative! To get
schools to teach IT and/or computing, not office skills.
Lisi
--
Please post to:
On 18 Feb 2015, at 17:06, Lisi hants...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2015 16:37:45 Jay Bennie wrote:
the idea that kids need to be taught to type or surf the web is laughable.
I thought that that was the whole point of this goverment initiative! To get
schools to teach
On 18/02/15 16:37, Jay Bennie wrote:
On 18 Feb 2015, at 16:19, Lisi hants...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2015 16:07:17 Jay Bennie wrote:
interesting reading, i wonder when people at the top will realise just
because you have a qualification, wont mean your any good at it.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:37:45 +, j...@lincore.com said:
it really narks the establishment and companies that software peeps get
paid more than senior managers
Correction: it may nark SOME of the group you identify. However, it's
pretty much guaranteed that anything will annoy someone
This could be a good thing. Remember that there are three major groups of
students.
Those who were already interested.
Those who might be interested with a little introduction and good teaching.
Those who will never be interested.
The first group is a minority. Perhaps a few students each
On 18 Feb 2015, at 21:19, Keith Edmunds k...@midnighthax.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:37:45 +, j...@lincore.com said:
it really narks the establishment and companies that software peeps get
paid more than senior managers
Correction: it may nark SOME of the group you identify.
On Wednesday 18 February 2015 16:07:17 Jay Bennie wrote:
interesting reading, i wonder when people at the top will realise just
because you have a qualification, wont mean your any good at it. Software
development is as much an art form as it is a trained skill. All this will
do is flood the
interesting reading, i wonder when people at the top will realise just because
you have a qualification, wont mean your any good at it. Software development
is as much an art form as it is a trained skill. All this will do is flood the
market with crap programmers.
On 18 Feb 2015, at 16:19, Lisi hants...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2015 16:07:17 Jay Bennie wrote:
interesting reading, i wonder when people at the top will realise just
because you have a qualification, wont mean your any good at it. Software
development is as much an
27 matches
Mail list logo
