Real Computer Scientists Don't Write Code

• 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 desert.)
• 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-dynamic.)
• 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' work.
• 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 planet.
• 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 regret the existence of PL/I, PASCAL and LISP. ADA is getting there, but it is still allows people to make mistakes.
• 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.
• 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 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.

stefanp@ce.chalmers.se