While there may be some truth in your comment, you do miss the entire point.
General purpose computers with general purpose operating systems on them are exactly what it sounds: general purpose. A PC would be comparable to a CNC mill in metal workshop. Operator needs certain base level of knowledge and skill to use the machine safely and purposefully. In fact, general purpose computers, "enterprise" controls on them and end user programs are so unimaginably good and miraculously robust that people with little to no formal training and very vague understanding of operational concerns of the system can use the system to consistently yield net positive result. Even when users actively try to bend the systems in ways they are explicitly not expected to be bent. I don't know whether this is because of or despite the systems being duck taped from scrap, but nevertheless these systems are amazingly resilient and fool proof.
> In no other engineering discipline would this shit fly; imagine building a bridge and just constructing it from rocks, old cars and whatever scrap they happened to have lying around the construction site and then fixing it on the go as some of that crap quite predictably falls apart. This is basically what all of computer/software industry is doing.
On the other hand, in no other engineering discipline engineers and operators are expected to provide a pedestrian bridge that is movable, can quickly scale to support military column and be able to support opening parade before foundation is poured. In no other engineering discipline you start building a façade and figure out internals later, based on use. The more I understand inner workings of computer systems, the more I am amazed at how they do not collapse under their own weight and remain operational.
I guess it is a new discipline suddenly in the world.
Whilst unlike in my youth where 99% programmer ever live still alive, we still have lots of them still alive. Still remember the first time to hear a programmer or IT guy died, he was shot down by the Soviet Union in a korean airplane.
> end user programs are so unimaginably good and miraculously robust that people with little to no formal training and very vague understanding of operational concerns of the system can use the system to consistently yield net positive result
... after destroying the keyboard, swearing to kill the guy who made such a parody of a program after decades of GUI experience was thrown out of the window.
Yes, i can use Windows and the accompanying Microsoft SW "to consistently yield net positive result", but at the expense of my mental health.
General purpose computers with general purpose operating systems on them are exactly what it sounds: general purpose. A PC would be comparable to a CNC mill in metal workshop. Operator needs certain base level of knowledge and skill to use the machine safely and purposefully. In fact, general purpose computers, "enterprise" controls on them and end user programs are so unimaginably good and miraculously robust that people with little to no formal training and very vague understanding of operational concerns of the system can use the system to consistently yield net positive result. Even when users actively try to bend the systems in ways they are explicitly not expected to be bent. I don't know whether this is because of or despite the systems being duck taped from scrap, but nevertheless these systems are amazingly resilient and fool proof.
> In no other engineering discipline would this shit fly; imagine building a bridge and just constructing it from rocks, old cars and whatever scrap they happened to have lying around the construction site and then fixing it on the go as some of that crap quite predictably falls apart. This is basically what all of computer/software industry is doing.
On the other hand, in no other engineering discipline engineers and operators are expected to provide a pedestrian bridge that is movable, can quickly scale to support military column and be able to support opening parade before foundation is poured. In no other engineering discipline you start building a façade and figure out internals later, based on use. The more I understand inner workings of computer systems, the more I am amazed at how they do not collapse under their own weight and remain operational.