![]() |
Cover of CHIP Magazine |
Talking to (more often than not younger) colleagues about "computers and stuff" can be quite interesting. The junior developer I work with, for example, was born when the C64 became publicly available. The guy missed those "early years" completely. He only knows PCs as boxes with exchangeable components, expansions, running some kind of "highly sophisticated" operating system, well hidden underneath a graphical user interface. And for some reason he, like many others I know, have no interest at all re learning about what is under the hood, what makes things tick.
Well, I have no idea yet why the junior developer is less curious about the tools he is actually working with, but obviously the "entry levels" for those joining the field of computers today are different from those I found when I did. Which makes me wonder what that could actually mean. What are possible differences between how young people are getting to know computers these days and how my generation got in touch with this kind of machines, while what we have in common is that we are interested in this technology?
Apart from teaching each other, over the years magazines and books opened new horizons: making the machines work meant coding, meant understanding this computer thing as a whole. The printed media provided lots of listings, and working with those listings meant reading them, typing them in and understanding them. And when the last typos had been removed and the whole thing finally did what it was meant to do, starting to change parts of it was the way to go, thus gaining an even better understanding the (basic) concepts and ideas. It was quite an adventurous time.
Of course, those who have a significant level of curiosity will always try to find out what is under the hood. And there are lots of curious people, which is a good thing! But I still think that today, folks can (and do) start on a completely different level, which in a way resembles driving a car than anything else: it might be helpful to understand some of the machinery, but you can drive a car without that knowledge. (If you have what it takes to be a "good" driver, that's a different story.)
The whole universe of computers has become so normal and so "userfriendly" that you don't have to learn things the hard way any more. You can reach almost every goal and create amazing (sometimes even highly complex) solutions with amazing little in-depth knowledge and experience. If you are good at search, copy and past, some might think of you as a wizard.
In the end it is a question of the personal mindset, a question of (personal) curiosity and a question of means. Those who don't want to just solve a problem, but are aiming at providing a really good solution will always try to find out more, will try to get the bigger picture, will try to use the tools at hand in the most creative way possible. Maybe it makes them feel more complete, maybe it is simply satisfying to have learned about the details and knowing that one doesn't have to take care of them at the moment, maybe it is just for the fun of it. Either way, it is a level those who are masters of search, copy and past will never reach.
I have plans to visit my parents this weekend. Maybe I should rake the attic for my old Commodore VC-20. And there are some small unfinished projects based on my Raspberry Pis waiting for me. All good fun - and it might include some search, copy and paste, too.