|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 UnStubified
- 3 Possible merge with software developer
- 4 Programmer Stereotypes
- 5 Systems
- 6 Languages and Frameworks
- 7 caveat, regarding the first computer programmers
- 8 Programmers
- 9 Merge Code monkey into Programmer
- 10 citation surely needed for claim that software quality has steadily increased [sic]
- 11 References of personal blogs
Please add more pictures of programmers! It will make the wiki page more interesting. Preferably pictures of earlier programmers at work. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- When making changes to the source code that programs are made up of, programmers need to make other programmers aware of the task that the routine is to perform. -
If only it were always true --JamesTheNumberless 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Old talk moved to talk:Famous_Programmers.
"...is someone who programmes or programs: the former spelling is used for television and such-like programming, while the latter is used for computer programming..." I've never heard of this distinction before. Perhaps it is a British distinction? I've been programming my whole career on computers and have always been called someone who "programs" never one who "programmes." If this is a British distinction, is should be noted as such. --Frecklefoot
Agreed. "Programme" is the British English spelling and is only used when referring to broadcast; computing has consistently adopted the American spelling. --Chocorisu
I've added a cite needed note for the "Ada Loveless" as the world's first programmer. I've heard that as well, but a cite is still needed. Joncnunn 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed it. This is well established, and there are plenty of citations on both the Ada Lovelace page and the Analytical engine page, both of which are linked in the sentence. I think this is sufficient. --Psyno 12:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the stub marking from this page. If anyone feels that there is a compelling reason to have it marked as a stub, please re-add the stub marker and leave a comment explaining what information you feel needs to be added before this should no longer be considered a stub.--Hereticam
Possible merge with software developer
Looks to me like the software developer article should be merged into this one. Joncnunn 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge--I concur. In fact, let's also include "coder" and present the minor differences between these terms. 3Laws 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a serious difference between coders, developers and engineers. Coders are usually people capable of implementing some predefined design, developers can code and design, engineers can architect complex systems comprised of multiple software/hardware components and see through the project execution. For comparison, consider civil engineers who build bridges vs. specialty craftsmen vs. average workers. Hexamon 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the stereotyped description of programmers is very valid or relevant in this context. I suggest cutting the second paragraph (shown below).
Those proficient in computer programming skills may become famous, though this regard is normally limited to software engineering circles. Many of the most notable programmers are often labeled hackers. Programmers often have or project an image of individualist geekdom, resistance to "suits" (referring to both business suits literally and figuratively to the "Establishment"), controls, and unionization.
The distinction between application programming and systems programming is not as clear-cut as the article suggests.
On the one hand, the definition given in the article agrees with the use of these terms within—to pick one notable example—Microsoft (cf. the two styles of Hungarian notation being named Apps Hungarian and Systems Hungarian after the Microsoft divisions within which they were used).
On the other hand, software engineering at the level above applications is also called systems development.
Some may also consider a database management system (offered in the article as an example of systems development) an application. I suspect that most people who (like myself) work on operating systems and operating system kernels would deem it so, while people who work on web applications or other software built on top of a database management system might disagree.
I agree with the arguments above, and I think the section explaining the difference between application and systems programming should be reconsidered.
Languages and Frameworks
In section "Nature Of The Work":
> Java, .NET and PHP are popular programming languages for Web and business applications.
.NET is a framework, not a language itself. Maybe it's meant its native language C#. I'm going to replace it.
caveat, regarding the first computer programmers
The reference that is now footnote number  points to ABC News: First Computer Programmers Inspire Documentary and says something to the effect that, these ladies were the first computer programmers. This is true if the word "computer" means a machine (hardware) -- which today, is the meaning of the word "computer". But the word "computer" has changed over time; prior to ENIAC, and even during most of the 1940's in some places, the word "computer" was an "occupation" word -- (like "baker" or "farmer"), so it meant a person, not a machine. One evidence for this, is the fact that when the ACM (http://www.acm.org) was founded, in 1947, its name was chosen to be the "Association for Computing Machinery". They would not have needed that word "Machinery", if the word "computer" had already "evolved" (more completely, as it has by now) from being a person to being a machine.
Why this matters
Way before the ladies who programmed the ENIAC, (but after Ada Lovelace I guess), there were programmers who wrote programs to be followed (carried out) by "computers" who were human persons (usually doing their computing with the help of [somewhat manual] "adding machines"). Since these programmers went way back -- years before ENIAC -- there is probably some risk here of misunderstanding (and maybe, some room here for "extra" careful use of language, in an effort to try to avoid or prevent such misunderstanding). Those "computer" programmers existed, and wrote programs for persons [called "computers"] to "execute", way before the ENIAC was built.
Just my 0.02 --Mike Schwartz (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually met two of these ladies from the ENIAC computing days. They said they were coders not programmers. They pointed out that programming was invented to make it easy for the men to understand what the women were doing. They said that men were not bright enough to do coding. Wallie (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I knows it have been 3 year, but if they claim to be coder, then they are just degrading them themself. they just have some superior complex with men. read this: http://brajeshwar.com/2007/are-you-a-programmer-or-a-coder/ ASuki Kimidori (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Merge Code monkey into Programmer
Definitely Agree. Wikipedia is not a jargon dictionary. There are no notable sources for Code monkey article to give it such coverage as it has been given. Half the information is questionable OR anyway. Placing "code monkey" in first lead sentence is also wrong — "code monkey" is not a directly synonymous to "programmer", unless somebody wishes to provide a notable source to support this. —13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- There are inline citations of it's use and which essentially covers notability. Unless the citations of course are reliable or independent which at least one or two of them are. I'm removing the merge tag on code monkey on the grounds that there has been no discussion to merge the article since the initial suggestion and that there is some ground for the article to be considered notable. Please restore the old tag if you disagree or open a new tag if a significant amount of time has passed. --Sin Harvest (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
citation surely needed for claim that software quality has steadily increased [sic]
The section on "Market changes in the USA" includes this claim: "As software quality has steadily increased in successive years, the knowledge and experience required to produce such software has also increased, particularly as new programming languages, software project management techniques, and application frameworks have been introduced."
My own feeling is that every piece of that statement is false, especially the claim that software quality has steadily increased. That surely requires a citation. (Was it Dijkstra who said that "hardware and software are in a race to see whether hardware can get faster faster than software is getting slower, and software is winning"?)
It also contradicts the following claim that "the knowledge and experience required to produce such software has also increased", because if the software is getting better, then the tools, which are pure software, should also be getting better---i.e., easier to use, and requiring less expertise. (And in fact some tools are actually getting better, such as gcc, but the tools that programmers are obliged to use in some work environments may well be getting worse.)
None of this is to say that nothing good is happening, but the race is certainly not to the swift nor victory to the strong in the software world: time and chance happeneth to every outfit which produces code.
I also agree with Eugene. In fact the entire statement about software quality needs to be removed. I have been in the software development profession for over 15 years and the definition of software quality has been much debated. To claim that software quality has improved doesn't really say anything. What do you mean by software quality? Does it means there are more tools avaliable now that catch software bugs hen before? What about the software bug that caused the the stock market to near crash in March of 2010? How do we know that the software we are using is of good quality? Are there latent bugs in software that are just waiting to bite us as demonstrated by the stock market fluctuation? Part of the problem is that there is really no way to 100% test the software and there are companies out there who under tight schedules adequately test their software. Also if you are making such a statement, please cite some studies that verify it. In the last 15 years I have not seen one study that verifies that software quality is improving. Please take this statement out. Thank you.