Real Computer Sci...

                              REAL COMPUTER SCIENTISTS: 
          Real computer scientists don't write code. They occasionally 
          tinker with 'programming systems', but those are so high level 
          that they hardly count (and rarely count accurately; precision is 
          for applications.) 
          Real computer scientists don't comment their code.  The 
          identifiers are so long they can't afford the disk space. 
          Real computer scientists don't write the user interfaces, they 
          merely argue over what they should look like. 
          Real computer scientists don't eat quiche. They shun Schezuan 
          food since the hackers discovered it. Many real computer 
          scientists consider eating an implementation detail. (Others 
          break down and eat with the hackers, but only if they can have 
          ice cream for dessert.) 
          If it doesn't have a programming environment complete with 
          interactive debugger, structure editor and extensive cross module 
          type checking, real computer scientists won't be seen tinkering 
          with it. They may have to use it to balance their checkbooks, as 
          their own systems can't. 
          Real computer scientists don't program in assembler.  They don't 
          write in anything less portable than a number two pencil. 
          Real computer scientists don't debug programs, they dynamically 
          modify them. This is safer, since no one has invented a way to do 
          anything dynamic to FORTRAN, COBOL or BASIC. 
          Real computer scientists like C's structured constructs, but they 
          are suspicious of it because its compiled. (Only Batch freaks and 
          efficiency weirdos bother with compilers, they're soooo un-
          Real computer scientists play Go. They have nothing against the 
          concept of mountain climbing, but the actual climbing is an 
          implementation detail best left to programmers. 
          Real computer scientists admire ADA for its overwhelming 
          aesthetic value, but they find it difficult to actually program 
          in, as it is much too large to implement. Most Computer 
          scientists don't notice this because they are still arguing over 
          what else to add to ADA. 
          Real computer scientists work from 5 pm to 9 am because that's 
          the only time they can get the 8 megabytes of main memory they 
          need to edit specs. (Real work starts around 2 am when enough 
          MIPS are free for their dynamic systems.) Real computer 
          scientists find it hard to share 3081s when they are doing 'REAL' 

          Real computer scientists only write specs for languages that 
          might run on future hardware. Nobody trusts them to write specs 
          for anything homo sapiens will ever be able to fit on a single 
          Real computer scientists like planning their own environments to 
          use bit mapped graphics. Bit mapped graphics is great because no 
          one can afford it, so their systems can be experimental. 
          Real computer scientists love conventions. No one is expected to 
          lug a 3081 attached to a bit map screen to a convention, so no 
          one will ever know how slow their systems run. 
          Real computer scientists regret the existence of PL/I, PASCAL and 
          LISP. ADA is getting there, but it still allows people to make 
          Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. 
          Hardware has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame 
          that Turing machines are so poor at I/O. 
          Real computer scientists love the concept of users. Users are 
          always real impressed by the stuff computer scientists are 
          talking about; it sure sounds better than the stuff they are 
          being forced to use now.