🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul31.171752.4641@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@ei.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes:
> Of course not, he's using proof by vigorous handwaving.

Look, I admit I'm handwaving. But that's because I'm not the one who has
to prove my point. I can't figure out a solid, reliable, legally usable
(i.e., ``objective'') test for programmers which competent programmers
will pass and which incompetent programmers will fail. I've asked in
many places if someone can come up with such a test. The only responses
I've received to which I might attach even the slightest credibility
also aren't ``objective.''

I don't think anybody has ever come up with such a test. (Of course, I'd
love to hear that I'm wrong!) I don't think you, or anyone else in this
discussion, can come up with even one ``objective'' question which could
appear on such a test. Yes, that's a challenge. I'll bet that any
question you come up with will filter out just as many good programmers
as bad programmers.

It is the burden of anyone who supports licensing to show that the basis
of that licensing---a licensing test, or a particular course of study---
is feasible. You haven't done this. It is a fool who wants to legally
mandate a task which no one knows how to accomplish.

---Dan