programming or just writing code?

By using these new RAD "development environments", the "software companies"
can quickly produce working, although extremely bloated programs. The ultimate
question is: What is better, an array of many hastily written and inefficient
programs, that are being created nearly instantaneously, or a single, highly
efficient, very elegantly designed one? This is an example of the "quality or
quantity" problem - monetarily-greedy software companies will of course want
to push their awful products for sale to the unwary lusers as fast as they can
while those that code for a desire to gain knowledge, to express oneself, to
show their ability, will carefully plan and design every aspect of their final
product, and proceed cautiously with care and attention to detail. It is after
they have developed substantial skills that they begin to train for time. Even
in the time-limited environment of a Competition, the entire design process is
carried out, although in an abbreviated manner. Never do they hastily "throw
some routines together and hope it'll work."

The other major problem with the programming population is the lowering of the
intelligence of programmers - today, all one needs to do is obtain a compiler
for any of the various free "beginner languages" available, write a few lines,
and compile them into a working (but highly inefficient) program. There is no
requirement to learn how exactly the machine itself functions, nor how source
code gets translated into a "program file" by the compiler. As a result, there
is a lowering of intelligence, a growing trend towards stupidity ("All you do
is write a few lines and press the Compile button"). If this continues, in the
future, "programmers" (they are no longer programmers, just "writers of code")
may never truly know that what they are doing is not real programming, nor the
fact that they are producing far more inefficient programs than they should. I
even doubt that they will know what efficiency means. If such a situation ever
occurs, all is lost, and we may never again be able to recover from it. Due to
this situation, we must stop the decline of intelligence quickly, by educating
all of the programmer population, especially the "writers of code", about this
decline in intelligence, in an attempt to "reform" them into true programmers.

( ´ω`) Discuss.

nothing to discuss fag.
If code is automatically generated but it's bloated, it'll get hacked. If it gets hacked, the company becomes untrusted.
The company doesn't want that to happend, and therefore will only use trusted tools and experienced programmers.
Don't be fucking stupid.

today, all one needs to do is obtain a compiler
for any of the various free "beginner languages" available, write a few lines,
and compile them into a working (but highly inefficient) program. There is no
requirement to learn how exactly the machine itself functions, nor how source
code gets translated into a "program file" by the compiler.
That's about me.

>>3
then read SICP.

Faggotry

>>4
This was unexpected; I thought that I would be called something bad.

>>6
/prog/ forgives all. You just have to read your SICP.

The other major problem with the programming population is the lowering of the intelligence of programmers - today, all one needs to do is obtain a compiler for any of the various free "beginner languages" available, write a few lines, and compile them into a working (but highly inefficient) program. There is no
requirement to learn how exactly the machine itself functions, nor how source code gets translated into a "program file" by the compiler.
>>1 is not a real programmer. Probably a Ctard, judging by that last line. Anyone who believes that learning a language like C well enough to write a working program (i.e. a program whose bugs you have not found yet) bestows magical efficiency knowledge on you needs to sit down with a profiler and not get up until they understand optimization.

>>7
Except those who forsake SICP. They can never return.

Once forsake SICP,
thy return can not \
for thy cast away 've been,
to no man's land last seen.

>>10
Your grammar is eye-bleedingly cocks.

>>11
Your cock is grammatically eye-bleeding.

>>11
you don't understand the poetic manifestation lying over at >>10

>>11
There's no
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────╖
│ ◕                                             ◕ ║
│                     REASON                      ║
│                  Version 1.0B7                  ║
│  Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system ║
│         Ng Security Industries, Inc.            ║
│      PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE       ║
│        DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA          ║
│              -ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-               ║
│ ◕                                             ◕ ║
╘═════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
to be so angry.

>>14
Everyone listens to Reason.

>>15
I prefer Renoise.

>>16
Both suck.

>>16
I mean Rechan.

>>18
We went from good to bad to pig disgusting.

Discuss changes on the   acid3 test Firefox   nightly break your   BBC ode checker.