Cook and State
The bright idea that “any cook can learn to manage the state” (V. I. Lenin) ignited the heads of businessmen and developers at the dawn of automation and has not left them for a minute since then. Translated into the language of IT, it began to sound something like this: "we will give the user convenient tools, and let him adjust and do everything himself." It's simple! Does the user in his field (baking cakes, issuing loans, posting to accounts, ...) understand? Understands. Here let him tinker there. And we do not care to delve into, give the tools and go, the main thing is to pay.
This idea, ingenious in its simplicity, was tried to be implemented repeatedly. Vivid examples:
* SQL language. Probably everyone knows that it originated from SEQUEL (Structured English Query Language) and was intended for writing queries by end users - hence its extraordinary syntax. Programmers who are forced to use it now would suit a much more modern and formal language, but, alas, standards, compatibility ...
* COBOL. Nothing to comment. Thank God our country almost didn’t hurt, and in the West 2000, this page of history was closed (almost).
* EXCEL (and the like). It would seem - clearly a successful product. This is as long as the complexity of the logic and the volume of the tables do not exceed a certain limit (rather low) and there is no need to transfer all the “content” to a more structured view (DB). It’s here that he takes it and understands how much a pound is dashing and what can he do with “a talented manager saving a firm’s money on free-lancers!” And if he still mastered the VBA ... And the crown phrase "Everything worked!" ...
* 1C: Entrepreneur. The ugliness of the language and the intentional avoidance of abstractions in it (types of variables, collections, etc.) are again due to the original intention to shift the work of programming to accountants. Accountants on the proposal to do everything themselves are running their fingers together at the temple. The result is a terrible shortage of literate 1C-programmers (not everyone will go for this miracle), with an abundance of challenge boys, who all then swear at.
And the list is far from being closed.
')
Another variation of the bright thought: let's put a girl (a boy, Petrovich, Margarita Semyonovna), give her a VisualBasic book, can read tea - so let her program, “not the gods are burning the pots”. About gods and pots may be true, but to know the rules of chess and play chess, at least at the level of the 3rd category - things are completely different and for some reason no one argues with this.
What is the problem? Why is a simple and good (seemingly) idea not working?
The problem is in the "cook", more precisely in the level of her thinking. Exaggerated: the cook uses terms like “1 spoon per pan”, “like-taste”, “until ready”, her thinking is concrete and subjective, and the result is not bad, because the task of that and requires. To force it to rise to a high level of abstraction and solve the problem “in general” is inhumane. If you do not believe, ask your mother (wife, grandmother, mother-in-law) to write down some family recipe with an exact indication of all weights, volumes and proportions, considering the cases of "no salt (onion, pepper, fire, water, light)", "time - 10 minutes ”,“ at the same time to cook 5 more dishes ”,“ for 10, 20, 120, 20000 people ”,“ save as much as possible ”and others that come to mind (hmm ... mother-in-law, perhaps, it is not necessary - maybe not forgive mockery). But for some reason, the desire to load a similar work of an accountant, operator or clerk seems to be a very good idea for many.
The cook can be taught (if you have abilities!) And managed by the state, but this requires more than one year, more than one book and, not excluded, mountains of broken dishes and spoiled dishes. And most importantly: by the time she is no longer a cook. So is it worth taking?
Original
UPD: The phrase “any cook can learn to manage the state” is not found in Lenin’s works, although he has similar statements.
This idea, ingenious in its simplicity, was tried to be implemented repeatedly. Vivid examples:
* SQL language. Probably everyone knows that it originated from SEQUEL (Structured English Query Language) and was intended for writing queries by end users - hence its extraordinary syntax. Programmers who are forced to use it now would suit a much more modern and formal language, but, alas, standards, compatibility ...
* COBOL. Nothing to comment. Thank God our country almost didn’t hurt, and in the West 2000, this page of history was closed (almost).
* EXCEL (and the like). It would seem - clearly a successful product. This is as long as the complexity of the logic and the volume of the tables do not exceed a certain limit (rather low) and there is no need to transfer all the “content” to a more structured view (DB). It’s here that he takes it and understands how much a pound is dashing and what can he do with “a talented manager saving a firm’s money on free-lancers!” And if he still mastered the VBA ... And the crown phrase "Everything worked!" ...
* 1C: Entrepreneur. The ugliness of the language and the intentional avoidance of abstractions in it (types of variables, collections, etc.) are again due to the original intention to shift the work of programming to accountants. Accountants on the proposal to do everything themselves are running their fingers together at the temple. The result is a terrible shortage of literate 1C-programmers (not everyone will go for this miracle), with an abundance of challenge boys, who all then swear at.
And the list is far from being closed.
')
Another variation of the bright thought: let's put a girl (a boy, Petrovich, Margarita Semyonovna), give her a VisualBasic book, can read tea - so let her program, “not the gods are burning the pots”. About gods and pots may be true, but to know the rules of chess and play chess, at least at the level of the 3rd category - things are completely different and for some reason no one argues with this.
What is the problem? Why is a simple and good (seemingly) idea not working?
The problem is in the "cook", more precisely in the level of her thinking. Exaggerated: the cook uses terms like “1 spoon per pan”, “like-taste”, “until ready”, her thinking is concrete and subjective, and the result is not bad, because the task of that and requires. To force it to rise to a high level of abstraction and solve the problem “in general” is inhumane. If you do not believe, ask your mother (wife, grandmother, mother-in-law) to write down some family recipe with an exact indication of all weights, volumes and proportions, considering the cases of "no salt (onion, pepper, fire, water, light)", "time - 10 minutes ”,“ at the same time to cook 5 more dishes ”,“ for 10, 20, 120, 20000 people ”,“ save as much as possible ”and others that come to mind (hmm ... mother-in-law, perhaps, it is not necessary - maybe not forgive mockery). But for some reason, the desire to load a similar work of an accountant, operator or clerk seems to be a very good idea for many.
The cook can be taught (if you have abilities!) And managed by the state, but this requires more than one year, more than one book and, not excluded, mountains of broken dishes and spoiled dishes. And most importantly: by the time she is no longer a cook. So is it worth taking?
Original
UPD: The phrase “any cook can learn to manage the state” is not found in Lenin’s works, although he has similar statements.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/74845/
All Articles