Good! We need less shitty software, the fewer people that write it the better.
I don't get why you have to be a certified engineer to build a bridge, but you can be some bloke with a 2 weekend course in python to program medical computers, avionics, train scheduling systems and other stuff that kills people when it breaks.
Good point. There's just one problem: any moron can still be able to become a programmer if they come from an anglophone country. Therefore, I propose that all companies in English-speaking countries switch to using Linotte[1], which is based on French.
I'm also going to submit a patch to GCC that will require the user to solve a differential equation before their code will compile.
>
1. good programming is probably beyond the intellectual abilities of today's "average programmer"
2. to do, hic et nunc, the job well with today's army of practitioners, many of whom have been lured into a profession beyond their intellectual abilities, is an insoluble problem
3. our only hope is that, by revealing the intellectual contents of programming, we will make the subject attracting the type of students it deserves, so that a next generation of better qualified programmers may gradually replace the current one.
Because man-hours is the limiting factor in software that is made. Additional software simply gives you more options to choose from. Yes, it contributes to noise, but it's nothing like building two bridges.
And thats why Apple and Microsoft have the best software?/s
A monkey with a typewriter will produce garbage no matter how many monkey hours it puts in.
The only way to have as little bugs as possible is to have as little software as possible.
I don't get why you have to be a certified engineer to build a bridge, but you can be some bloke with a 2 weekend course in python to program medical computers, avionics, train scheduling systems and other stuff that kills people when it breaks.
Non native speaker btw.