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
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.