This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed a few things, I:
-- Eelis 23:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
The merge seems like a poor idea to me. "System software" is something that a computer user or operator might need to know about. Systems programming is something that a programmer or someone interested in programming might want to know about. Yes, one needs to know what System software is before one reads about how to create it, but that doesn't mean the articles should be merged. "System software" is understandable to the casual passer-by; programming isn't. Both articles can be expected to grow with time. - R. S. Shaw 22:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think that this article can have more applications. For example, i followed this link from the C reference library stdlib.h, searching for the system() function, that allows to interact with the operating system shell options
I have been around computer systems for over 30 years and I see that most of the tasks today performed by system administrators, especially on unix and unix-like systems, were once performed by systems programmers. The only difference is that in the old days, with mainframes and DEC 36 and 32 bit machines, a system "admin" had to know some programming to do his (or her, but they were almost exclusively men) job. Does anyone else agree with this? -- rogerd 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree... I have added a section "Alternate Usage" to describe this. This is quite an important piece of information because the use of the term "systems programmer" to mean "system administrator" still appears in job postings, and that can cause confusion for job seekers. Tzadik 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A problematic article, I think. There needs to be references to sources, and if there are multiple multiple definitions (which I'm sure there are) they need to be adressed. The article is not even consistent with itself: MacOs I/O Kit is the only example of a post-C language used for systems programming, but whoever wrote that part must have been thinking about kernel programming — C++, Java etc are widely used for things which aren't application programming. (And of course, splitting programming into "systems" and "application" leaves out huge parts of the programming that happens, from shell scripts to Excel macros and Perl one-liners.). JöG ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
System programming logically can also mean programming a system of any kind, versus programming something that interacts (usually thru an API) with such a system. It's more of a virtual POV of what a "system" is. Whether you are dealing with a system might be whether other disparate programmers will rely upon what you are doing, and therefore you don't have the luxury of deciding if enough is enough optimization wise, because you do not know what the final application will be. Just one alternative take. -- 67.54.235.190 ( talk) 07:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed a few things, I:
-- Eelis 23:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
The merge seems like a poor idea to me. "System software" is something that a computer user or operator might need to know about. Systems programming is something that a programmer or someone interested in programming might want to know about. Yes, one needs to know what System software is before one reads about how to create it, but that doesn't mean the articles should be merged. "System software" is understandable to the casual passer-by; programming isn't. Both articles can be expected to grow with time. - R. S. Shaw 22:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think that this article can have more applications. For example, i followed this link from the C reference library stdlib.h, searching for the system() function, that allows to interact with the operating system shell options
I have been around computer systems for over 30 years and I see that most of the tasks today performed by system administrators, especially on unix and unix-like systems, were once performed by systems programmers. The only difference is that in the old days, with mainframes and DEC 36 and 32 bit machines, a system "admin" had to know some programming to do his (or her, but they were almost exclusively men) job. Does anyone else agree with this? -- rogerd 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree... I have added a section "Alternate Usage" to describe this. This is quite an important piece of information because the use of the term "systems programmer" to mean "system administrator" still appears in job postings, and that can cause confusion for job seekers. Tzadik 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A problematic article, I think. There needs to be references to sources, and if there are multiple multiple definitions (which I'm sure there are) they need to be adressed. The article is not even consistent with itself: MacOs I/O Kit is the only example of a post-C language used for systems programming, but whoever wrote that part must have been thinking about kernel programming — C++, Java etc are widely used for things which aren't application programming. (And of course, splitting programming into "systems" and "application" leaves out huge parts of the programming that happens, from shell scripts to Excel macros and Perl one-liners.). JöG ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
System programming logically can also mean programming a system of any kind, versus programming something that interacts (usually thru an API) with such a system. It's more of a virtual POV of what a "system" is. Whether you are dealing with a system might be whether other disparate programmers will rely upon what you are doing, and therefore you don't have the luxury of deciding if enough is enough optimization wise, because you do not know what the final application will be. Just one alternative take. -- 67.54.235.190 ( talk) 07:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)