That's a nice way of putting it. I have always described it as a pleasing mix of art and science but you make some good additions.

"Programmer" doesn't bother me. (I will take it over the pompous sounding "software engineer" any day). Bill Gates put it down as his occupation on tax returns for years.

>To a point I understand what you are saying. But we can get lost in a sea of semantics here.
>Firstly we'd have to agree on the definition of a programmer.
>Developing software can, and arguably should, embody art, science, inspiration. craft, plain manual labour and more. But what's the 'programmers' role in this ? If we take a narrow defintion then,yes, it would probably fall in the craft/ manual labour end of the range.
>
>If you took a car as an analogy it takes very different skill set to design an aesthetically pleasing body and a reliable engine.....
>etc, etc :=}
>
>
>
>>I believe that's Eric's point: user software is crafted, because it has to interact with those unpredictable entities called people; non-user software can (and as in the case you brought up should) be engineered. The Agile software development movement (and others, like XP) is based on the observation that traditional engineering methods do not work well in software development that, essentially, is articulating a user domain in software. For more tightly constrained (in terms of domain) situations, where it is possible to pre-specify requirements, the engineering model applies.
>>
>>Hank
>>
>>>>We agree that .Net statically typed languages are an engineer's tool.
>>>>
>>>>I'm with Eric Sink http://www.ericsink.com/Are_Programmers_Engineers.html and Joel Spolsky http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Craftsmanship.html on that one: we are software craftsmen/women, not engineers. Thankfully.
>>>>
>>>That first link is surely meant as a joke ?
>>>Programmers are not engineers because:
>>>(a) Anyone is allowed to write code
>>>(b) Programmers love what they do
>>>(c) Programmers have no idea what they are doing
>>>(d) Programming is abstract
>>>
>>>The last is the only one that deserves a response : Go write an auto-pilot system for a 400-seat airliner.......
>>>
>>>>>You know I respect your opinion and expertise. But I honestly don't get the distaste for strong typing (not limited to you). IMO it protects me from bugs before they happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am also not quite on board with the view that Xbase is an advanced programming language. It's all right, especially with all the improvements Microsoft made to it. Wayne Ratliff probably never imagined the latest capabilities in his wildest dreams. Let's not forget why it became popular, though. It was written so a halfway intelligent "power user" could write useful applications with it. It's not an engineer's language like C# or even modern VB.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks again for the recommendation of ReSharper. What a great tool.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi William,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with you on the commercial angle. eTec has been a disaster as a business organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To say that .Net works, however, leaves out quite a few details. C++ works, too. So does Assembly. The issue isn't whether it works, but whether it is tuned to the work we actually do. I think I've made the case here and in my blog entries that .Net in it's statically-typed form does not meet many (and certainly does not meet my) development needs in creating and maintaining large, complex business applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As you know, the xBase dialect has been tuned over 25 years to focus on business application development. It has been a growing language (at least for the first 20 years). VFP.Net leverages that knowledge, and adds seamless integration into the .Net ecology. No other .Net dynamic language (I've just spent 3 intense weeks exploring what IronPython can, and can not, do) offers full integration into .Net. If (big if) they finish the product, and if (much bigger if) they can make the product commercially viable, I can see a big adoption rate among the million or so VB6 programmers who have not moved to .Net: VFP over the years has been a friendly landing space for VB programmers. I can see it used for beginning computer language classes, because it a) gets at the heart of OOP without needless complications; b) has direct data access where syntax doesn't get in the way of thinking about data; and c) offers the best of .Net fully available when you want it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do hope they can erase those if's: I think we would all be better off, whether or not we make the switch, because the pressure will be on the Dynamic Languages Team to raise their bar higher than they have set it. And I'm not holding my breath, nor stopping progress on where I'm going as an alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hank
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have a friend who had a couple of wives who were absolute knock-outs, a playgirl bunny of the month, another was a Hooter magazine centerfold (certainly not the church bulletin). I asked him what it was like, he said like roller coaster ride. He's now single (has a beautiful daughter though). This thing with Etec is a roller coaster ride and I need something I can stay married to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. .NET is reality and it works. It will be around for quite a while (or paths to a followon will be clear). There are a lot of other alternate (alter.NET?) realities as well that exist and will stick around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ETec is an intermediary tool to allow VFP developers to stay within a VFP like development environment. Suggestions that it would be used by other developers are ludicrous IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ETec has missed their window of opportunity. Developers who want to move away from strict VFP development have by and large done so or are in process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My point is that developers should be looking for reality now if they haven't moved from VFP already. ETec may (although unlikely) wind up with a product, but hopefully nobody looks to that as the future path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You move on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If some day this actually becomes a real product and you haven't bypassed it completely, it may be worth a look.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I certainly wouldn't wait for it.