Re:The proof is in the code. That is all.
by swombat on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:40AM
(#1594205)
You can't succeed with crappy software or programmers? Funny, I can think of a certain OS that wasn't at all very stellar compared to alternatives at the time yet nevertheless went on to dominate...
Which OS are you talking about? Windows? MS-DOS and Windows had some of the best programmers of the time working on them. Bill Gates himself is renowned for his programming skills. Microsoft interviews practically set the standard for uber-difficult interviews that filter out all but the best programmers.
Linux? What, because Linus Torvalds (who wrote the kernel) and Richard M Stallman (who wrote emacs) aren't good enough for you?
Mac OS X? Ok, that one, I don't know the names of any stellar programmers on there, but somehow I doubt that's the one you were referring to (and the fact that they keep quiet doesn't mean there aren't some awesome hackers working on OS X).
Re:The proof is in the code. That is all.
by InclinedPlane on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @05:14AM
(#1594244)
To put a finer point on it, pre OS X the Mac OS was an engineering disaster. It's fundamentals were more on par with Win 3.1, let alone Windows 9x or NT or Unix. Without OS X it's questionable whether Apple would have had the capability to keep up with the industry.
The whole article reads like a troll. Though perhaps we're using different definitions of 'mediocre programmer'. Is a mediocre programmer one who is mostly self taught, hasn't coded a lot of personal things, and only knows one or two languages at a reasonable depth to get things done? Or is it one who struggles with FizzBuzz? Bah, I'm taking too much time with this. If the proof is in the code, show us some examples of code from sizable open source projects that succeeded and code that didn't! I'd bet the quality is roughly the same.