Re: converting raw images f...Eric Stevens
|Subject||Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D|
|Date||12/03/2013 23:18 (12/04/2013 11:18)|
|Followups||nospam (11m) > Eric Stevens|
Sandman (10h & 13m) > Eric Stevens
On 3 Dec 2013 11:29:26 GMT, Sandman <email@example.com>wrote:
SandmanYes, I was initially following along with Floyd's terminology before I decided I should expnd the term to computing.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanIndeed. Not understand programming, however.Eric Stevens
You have to be able to understand programming but not not necessarily to the point of being able to do much of it.
It seems, from another post, that when you say "programming", you mean "computing" which is a completely different word meaning something completely different.
An architect does NOT need to know the first thing about *programming* anything. A fair understanding about "computing" I would agree with. Computing is such a broad word so it can mean anything really, but in terms for an architect, he would do well to understand what can and can't be done with computers and automated software.That's exactly what I'm getting at.
Programming is the act of creating the software that he would be using. He does not need to know anything about how this is done, that's what the programmer och developer should know.Yep, though I've had a stgructural engineering partner who wrote his own analysis programms for complex structures.
So what's the argument about?SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
I would not describe the training required as programming (although that is part of it) so much as applied computing.
But the topic is your claim that an architect need to understand programming.
That wasn't my claim. If you go back far enough you will find I said "He has to understand what programming is all about".
Eric Stevens 12/01/2013 <email@example.com>
"If you are an architect or engineer who doesn't understand programming you can't direct those people who develop the computer programs which play an increasingly important part in what the professions do today."
Eric Stevens 12/03/2013 <firstname.lastname@example.org>There are such people, but they are not the most successful.
"You have to be able to understand programming but not not necessarily to the point of being able to do much of it."SandmanOf course not. You don't have to understand car mechanics in order to understand that you need to put gas in the tank and can't drive cross country with your Prius.Eric Stevens
You are being unfair to architects (or engineers) if you equate what they do to putting gas in the tank etc.
But it is. They use the tools they have at their disposal like a taxi driver would, or even a race car driver.
A race car driver doesn't need to know the first thing about car mechanics (but it's a fair bet that many do) in order to race the car.All the succesful ones have engineering skills which help them get the best out of their cars.
A skilled race car driver will perform magic with a car, just like an architect might perform magic with AutoCAD. They both have their tools, and the inner workings of the tools aren't *needed* knowledge for them to do what they do.Architects using Autocad? Somewhat unlikely.
In some cases, it may be a bonus, it may be helpful but it's not needed. Chuck Yeager started as an aircraft mechanic and ended up pushing the limits of aircrafts, but not all pilots are aircraft mechanics, and no one is expected to know more about aircraft mechanics than the equivalent of putting gas in the car and switching tires.You seem to have the programmer leading the way. In fact you have the architect/engineer telling the programmer what he wants done. The architect/engineer can't really do that unless he understands computing.SandmanThis is a lot more true - the programmer would do well to understand the basics of arhitecture (instead of the otehr way around) to better build solutions for hus collegues. And, interestingly, this is usually how it's done.Eric Stevens
Goodness gracious. Do yo see the programmer in command?
Huh? Your question doesn't seem to be related to the sentence it followed.
But I do know something about it. I have an architect as a brother in law. My old firm worked with lots of architects on all sizes of buildings.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
I can't really speak for architects but I can for engineers. How about processing the design of an object defined by Solid Works http://www.solidtec.co.nz/products/solidworks-3d-cad/?gclid=CNnbzu7AkrsCFQTnpAodXhQARQ with elements of the Catia suite http://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/portfolio/catia-v5/ with MSC non linear stress analysis package http://www.mscsoftware.com/application/nonlinear-analysis with the result output in a Fanuc M-code for use in suitable CNC machine tools?
You have interface and data transform problems at every stage.
But why change the topic to engineering though?
Because Floyd initially talked about architects and engineers. Because I am an engineer.
So why didn't you limit your initial comment to be about engineers only and not include architecture, a field you apparently know nothing about?
This is what Floyd said:I was astonished at nospam's narrow view of architects writing apps.
Floyd L. Davidson 12/01/2013 <email@example.com>
"I'll point out that for at least 50 years every engineer has been taking programming courses. You want to be an architech, you learn programming. You want to design bridges, you learn programming.#
And nospam's followup question:
nospam 12/01/2013 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"architects take programming courses?? what apps have they written?"
This is where you joined in. No one challanged Floyd's claim that engineers take programming courses.
There is an awful lot of engineering in the architecture of any reasonably large structure. There is no clear boundary between architecture and engineering.SandmanEric StevensSandmanThe designer should always concentrate on the design, it's the programmer's task to enable the next step, and communicate whatever limitations there is in that step.Eric Stevens
THat's the pessimist's view.
Mayhaps. Also happens to be reality. Not only are few people savvy to both creative design/aesthetics and the more surreal and abstract thinking required for programming, it's also a matter of education and time. If you want to be a great architect, you'd do well to focus less on the tools and especially programming and more on your visions and creative work.
Do you speak on the basis of your long years as an architect? :-)
No, as a designer and working with 3D modelling. I'm not a professional, but an architect is much like any other *designer*. His or her work is creative, like my work is.
An engineer is a very different kind of person with very different kind of requirements, generally speaking.You are still trying to make a clear distinction where in fact there is none.
I am not an engineer.SandmanActually, it requires no knowledge about programming at all. Programming is how you create a program, but all your examples is about how you USE a program.Eric Stevens
You have made your own watertight definition. It doesn't actually work like that.
Because according to you, "programming" is how you use a program?
I see you forgot to add your own counter-definition that makes mine invalid.Are you instead suggesting that the programmer has to understand architecture?SandmanI should have said "who cares whether or not they are native programming languages (whatever they really are)". THey are tools for mainulating the computer and that is all that is really required.Eric Stevens
Nor are they really design tools.
The facebook status bar is a "tool to manipulate the computer" with that broad definition. We're talking about programming here, which can be anything from machine code, native code to more superficial scripting and interpreted code.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
An architect hires people to do this kind of thing. The point is that the architect has to be able to talk to them.
And he can; without understanding programming. People who don't understand programming have talked to programmers for decades :)
And people who understand the programming of computers are that much more succesful.
To some extent, that's quite true. But we're discussion your claim that an architext "have to" understand programming (see above). My claim is that no - the don't "have to" understand the first thing about programming.
Are you suggesting that you can buy a package which will do it all for you? Well, maybe Catia could, but I can't think of anything else (that's not to say there isn't anything). But even making Catia do the job would require a very considerable number of scripts.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
How do you think these images came to be? http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architecture/2012-01/best-architectural-projects-slideshow
Not from a script :)
You are joking. Creating that lot required a zillion scripts.
Any support for this claim? And also - any support for the implication that those supposed "zillions" of scripts were written by architects?
I have a fairly good idea. The question is, do you? --Eric StevensSandman
The question is, who wrote them and with what end in mind?
If you don't know, why would you use the link as an example for your position?