Talk:Systems programming

message: :I disagree with the removal of debugging and logging. While it is not specific to system programming, it has somehow different role in system programming from that in application programming. Moreover, I proposed the merger of system programming and system software. The two articles are still fairly short and and I thought it is a kind of awkward to talk about how to do system programming without elucidating what is system software. -- Taku 23:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
::I would be in favor of a merger, but can't seem to find your proposal (I'm pretty new around here). Could you provide a link? Thanks. -- Eelis 23:53, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
:Because I forgot to add the tag: . I should have not started working before morning coffee :) -- Taku 23:59, May 21, 2005 (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)
thread_title: Proposed merge with System software

message: 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)
thread_title:  system programmers and system administrators 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vague definition, citation needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative characterization