[OT] What happened to our industry?

[Oliver Wong]

I may not be able to
claim that my having a job is more important than someone else having
a job, but I sure as heck can't come up with a reason that someone
else having a job is more important than me having a job!

From a philosophical point of view, I can't prove anyone else's
existence (they could all be figments of my imagination), but I can prove my
own existence (follows from "I think, therefore I am!"). Therefore, it is
much more important for me to get a job than for anyone else, because at
least I know I actually exist!

- Oliver

 

[jan V]

developers were to belong to, be certified and accredited by an
independent organization recognized worldwide, and adhere to the
acceptable practices set by such an organization, the role of the
software developer within an organization (government or corporate)
would be legitimized and managers (executives!) can establish a higher
level of confidence in their software team. This would push the
industry several steps forward, and eliminate a good chunk of the
garbage floating around, whether frameworks, products or people.

I doubt it. I was a paid-up member of the IEEE Computer Society many years
ago... before joining I thought this organization was highly respected. I
loved their ethical manifesto. But they don't have any enforcing power, and
that means it's all air... words... dreams. Even if you endeavoured to have
90% of all programmers become a member of the society, I don't think it
would make a qualitative difference.

Laws can make a difference, especially if they're backed by proactive
enforcement and real punishment. But look at Western legal systems today:
even the punishments handed out are being dilluted more and more. So, from
where I'm standing, I think the IT industry will just grind on the way it
has for the past fourty years... a cowboy's paradise.

 

[gerrards8]

I doubt it. I was a paid-up member of the IEEE Computer Society many years
ago... before joining I thought this organization was highly respected. I
loved their ethical manifesto. But they don't have any enforcing power, and
that means it's all air... words... dreams. Even if you endeavoured to have
90% of all programmers become a member of the society, I don't think it
would make a qualitative difference.

Laws can make a difference, especially if they're backed by proactive
enforcement and real punishment. But look at Western legal systems today:
even the punishments handed out are being dilluted more and more. So, from
where I'm standing, I think the IT industry will just grind on the way it
has for the past fourty years... a cowboy's paradise.

Speaking of the IEEE, check this out:

[http://www.computer.org/portal/site...certification&file=index.xml&xsl=generic.xsl&]

Or simply go to http://www.computer.org, select "Career Development &
Education", then "Certification".

 

[Chris Uppal]

From a philosophical point of view, I can't prove anyone else's
existence (they could all be figments of my imagination), but I can prove
my own existence (follows from "I think, therefore I am!"). Therefore, it
is much more important for me to get a job than for anyone else, because
at least I know I actually exist!

;-)

But do you have an evidential basis for believing that you do actually need the
job ? Perhaps your bank balance would turn out to replenish itself anyway.
Maybe you would discover that eating is unnecessary for your continuing
existance. Etc...

-- chris

 

[jan V]

Speaking of the IEEE, check this out:[http://www.computer.org/portal/site/ieeecs/menuitem.c5efb9b8ade9096b8a9ca01
08bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pName=ieeecs_level1&path=ieeecs/education/certification
&file=index.xml&xsl=generic.xsl&]

But companies aren't looking for CSDPs, they're looking for MCPs and MCADs
and SCJPs....

 

[Oliver Wong]

;-)

But do you have an evidential basis for believing that you do actually
need the
job ? Perhaps your bank balance would turn out to replenish itself
anyway.
Maybe you would discover that eating is unnecessary for your continuing
existance. Etc...

I don't have any such evidence, but from the direction this thread is
heading, it sounds like having a job is something desirable, and if that's
the case, better I have one than someone else!

- Oliver

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

From a philosophical point of view, I can't prove anyone else's
existence (they could all be figments of my imagination), but I
can prove my own existence (follows from "I think, therefore I
am!"). Therefore, it is much more important for me to get a job
than for anyone else, because at least I know I actually exist!

I seem to recall from philosophy 101 that Descartes' famous statement
was discredited. But I don't recall the details. Anyway, maybe
thinking isn't enough to prove you are, so you're no more real than
anyone else!

 

[Oliver Wong]

I seem to recall from philosophy 101 that Descartes' famous statement
was discredited. But I don't recall the details. Anyway, maybe
thinking isn't enough to prove you are, so you're no more real than
anyone else!

I take Descartes' statement to be axiomatic. If there is a a good reason
to doubt it, I'd be very interested to know what it is, as removing an axiom
can cause a whole logical system to come crumbling down.

- Oliver

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

I take Descartes' statement to be axiomatic. If there is a a
good reason to doubt it, I'd be very interested to know what it
is, as removing an axiom can cause a whole logical system to
come crumbling down.

- Oliver

A lot of people think it begs the question.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html

"Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it
depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous
argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: "I think,
therefore I am." Descartes has begged the question here, because when
he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he
think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three
hundred years later."

But then other people think it doesn't ...


http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ffweblog.html

"A: Yes, Kelvin, this argument is sound, but so is the argument "I
sneeze, therefore I am." You have to exist to think, sneeze, or do
anything else. Nor does it beg the question; at least, no more than
any other deductive argument.

Of course, the reason why Descartes started with the premiss "I think"
rather than "I sneeze" was because he was attempting to start with
something he could be certain about. Descartes thought that he might
dream that he was sneezing.or just about anything else.in which case
the premiss would be false and the argument, therefore, unsound.
However, even if he were dreaming, he would still be thinking, because
dreaming is a type of thinking, so that "I think" would still be true.

Of course, the conclusion of the argument is not a very profound one,
and Descartes was only interested in proving his own existence in
order to go on to prove such interesting things as the existence of
God and the immortality of the soul. So, Descartes' "cogito ergo sum"
argument is sound, but many of his subsequent arguments are not!
(Added: 8/23) "

 

[Oliver Wong]

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html

Hmm, there's a lot of things I don't agree with on that page. It seems
to differentiate between circular reasoning and (valid) deductive logic
based on how much of the premise the conclusion is based upon. For example,
it considers "P implies Q. P. Therefore Q." to be valid, but "Q. Therefore
Q." to be "invalid" (or circular reasoning). To me, both are valid deductive
arguments.

I think the author is confusing "truth value" with "validity". The
arguments are deductively valid because if the assumptions are true, then
the conclusion must be true (this is the case for "Q. Therefore Q" for
example). However, the even though the arguments are deductively valid, that
does not nescessarily mean that they are true. If the assumptions are false,
then a deductively valid argument could end up being false as well.

Of the exercise at the end of the page, I particularly disagree with the
explanation for answer "B", on police brutality. To me, it seems like a
valid deductive argument (though its truth value depends entirely on the
truth value of the assumptions made). I'd formulate the statement like this
"P if and only if Q. Not P. Therefore not Q." where Q is "The charges are
true." and P is "The police did it.". Nowhere in that statement is it
assumed that the claim is false; rather, it is assumed that the police
didn't commit physical abuse, and from that, the claim being false is
derived.

"Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it
depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous
argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: "I think,
therefore I am." Descartes has begged the question here, because when
he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he
think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three
hundred years later."

So once again, I'm in disagreement with the author. Nowhere is there an
assumption that Descarte exists. Instead, Descarte assumes he is thinking,
and assumes that as a requirement to think, one needs to exist. From these
two assumptions, Descarte derives that he must exist.

Anyway, I was a bit imprecise when I said Descartes' statement is an
axiom. It's actually an argument based on two more fundamental axioms. Those
axioms are of course, the two assumptions I listed above: that Descarte is
thinking, and that one needs to exist to think. As far as I know, there's no
way to prove either assumptions, but they're taken to be "self-evidently"
true.

- Oliver

 

[gerrards8]

But companies aren't looking for CSDPs, they're looking for MCPs and MCADs
and SCJPs....

Maybe, and that is somewhat part of the problem as majority of those
certifications do not qualify their applicants' software development
skills, but rather, their (vendor) products' specific skills. In my
experience, such certifications are not worth much.

I suggest that the industry needs a professional level type
certification that is awarded by a credible organization, and it seems
that the CSDP may very well be that missing piece, provided that the
IEEE Computer Society educates employers and heavily promotes such
certification as a minimal standard that developers should attain.
Product specific certifications can then be added to sweeten the CSDP's
credentials.

Regardless of what acronyms used for such a certification, my argument
is that it is needed in the industry, and would resolve a lot of the
issues described in this thread without the need for unions or
government involvement. Seeing how easily hype spreads and gets
embraced, promoting CSDP should be a simple task!

 

[jan V]

But companies aren't looking for CSDPs, they're looking for MCPs and
MCADs

Maybe, and that is somewhat part of the problem as majority of those
certifications do not qualify their applicants' software development
skills, but rather, their (vendor) products' specific skills. In my
experience, such certifications are not worth much.

I agree with that.

I suggest that the industry needs a professional level type
certification that is awarded by a credible organization, and it seems
that the CSDP may very well be that missing piece, provided that the
IEEE Computer Society educates employers and heavily promotes such
certification as a minimal standard that developers should attain.

But here the problems start: a generic, technology-, or even
language-neutral certification... what would the contents be of that
course... what would the exam questions be? With technology-specific
certification, those questions are easily answered (in comparison).. but
with a neutral "this certificate tells the world you are a competent
developer", I can easily imagine virtually nobody agreeing on anything that
would "have to" be in that exam.

What would you put in it?

o requirements gathering?
o OO analysis?
o proper use of use cases?
o proper use of UML? (Is UML something techology-specific, or can we agree
that it's a universal given, these days?)
o coding standards? (what would the exam want as answer to the question
"How many spaces do you have to use to indent your code?" BANG !)
o algorithmic knowledge?
o etc...
o etc...
o etc...

Every verbal/loud protagonist of style/language/approach/methodology would
try to shoot down any organization attempting to proclaim that its
certification programme leads to a label of quality for plain,
technology-neutral developers, if that programme didn't reflect the
protagonist's views.

Product specific certifications can then be added to sweeten the CSDP's
credentials.

Nah, I don't think it would work.

Regardless of what acronyms used for such a certification, my argument
is that it is needed in the industry, and would resolve a lot of the
issues described in this thread without the need for unions or
government involvement.

I agree that there is a big problem in our industry, but I don't think your
suggested solution would work. It's a difficult problem...

Seeing how easily hype spreads and gets
embraced, promoting CSDP should be a simple task!

I don't think so, because there is no demand for something like the CSDP. I
think that most technologically biased certification programmes exist
because the companies behind the technologies thought there was a market for
such a certificate. I think demand has to preceed supply in this situation,
as with so many modern products.