Obviously, and it wasn't; and I wish that some of the "testing" done
prior to drug releases were done under the auspices of some sort of
"beta test" program. Right now, it is the pits. Approvals are
literally "purchased" by the drug companies. Very dangerous. Back in
the 60s, just after graduating from Cal, I was a detail person for one
of Pfizer's subsidiaries, mostly covering anti-biotics, some of which
are no longer on the market, though we extolled their virtues and
played down their side-effects; i.e. liver damage among them. I became
very disenchanted by the entire medical process. The only ones that
impressed me as a group were the Pediatricians, D.Os. and General
Practitioners. Obviously, there were isolated exceptions!
Joe Wilkins
On Mar 16, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Marian Petrides, M.D. wrote:
Oops. Sorry, Joe. That was not supposed to be an all-inclusive list
(it didn't include, for example, my sister's profession either--
educator). And there are many others, too.
No offense was intended--I hope none was taken.
I entirely agree that the lessons learned from programming have made
me a better physician and vice versa. In fact, what I like best
about programming is the application of the scientific method in a
context that SHOULD be internally consistent. That is to say, if I
do the same thing twice it should yield the same result. (Try that
with human patients if you want an exercise in frustration.) Then
again, I'm one of those weird people who actually enjoys beta
testing. Hmm... diagnostic medicine as beta testing... works for
me. ;-)
>>>I only wish Architects had a similar resource, but I'm afraid
we're too egotistical to admit that we don't have all the answers
ourselves. You never hear an Architect self-label themselves as
"newbies". (enormous smile!)
Oh, yeah. And I hear my residents calling themselves "newbies"
every day. (NOT!) :-)
M
On Mar 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Joe Lewis Wilkins wrote:
Some excellent points, Marian.
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't include Architecture in
your listing of "practices"; even more so by computer science's use
of the term architect in various aspects of the work to be done.
Actually, following my involvement with computers, I became a much
better Architect due to several realizations. I've mentioned this
before, elsewhere; but I believe it is worth mentioning again. In
my earlier days as an Architect, I found myself procrastinating,
being unwilling to actually start work on a project; mostly by
being overwhelmed with the magnitude of what needed to be done.
Once I started breaking things down, solving "little" bits and
pieces, the project started to be less imposing. Then it even
started to be fun. But I always felt guilty about the earlier
procrastination. After spending some time trying to program Macs,
reading a lot of books on many programming languages, making a
whole bunch of false starts, I came upon the concept of breaking
the problem down into small, resolvable pieces; solving what I knew
how to solve; and researching how to do the things that I didn't
already know how to resolve.
Unfortunately, this was never taught "specifically" at U.C.
Berkeley where I got my architectural degree. Maybe it was implied,
since we did spend an enormous amount of time with preliminary
designs and working with "programs" for projects; however, the
programs for the projects were always handed to us as a part of our
assignments, with no realization of the process. Had I been
studying Computer Science, that would have been one of the first
things I would have be taught. (I think!) I learned this very
quickly when I started writing Handlers and Functions for my
computer programs.
I now apply this mentality to Architecture, and have come to
realize that "procrastination" (but by a different name) is part of
all problem solving. It is during this "procrastination" process
that we digest the requirements of a project, and start breaking it
down into "aha! I can solve that" bits and pieces. The time is not
wasted. Sometimes it even saves time by coming up with a better
approach than might have been taken had we plunged right into
"doing it". Incidentally, this list is a great resource for that
"procrastination process", and then for the subsequent
"researching" process. I only wish Architects had a similar
resource, but I'm afraid we're too egotistical to admit that we
don't have all the answers ourselves. You never hear an Architect
self-label themselves as "newbies". (enormous smile!)
Joe Wilkins
On Mar 16, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Petrides, M.D. Marian wrote:
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I offer the following as a
synopsis of the sentiments underlying the posts about the "Learn
Programming in One Day" ad. The common thread seems to me to be
that programming, like any other profession, is not so much taught
as practiced. Just as medical or law schools teach the rudiments
of the profession, the real learning takes place in the day-to-day
practice. Without lifelong learning, no lawyer, doctor, or
programmer will come close to achieving his/her full potential.
Someone once told me in my first year of medical school that
"medicine is a personal philosophy, tempered by science and
experience, and put into practice." It seems to me that the
statement applies equally to programming. My 2 cents.
M
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
