Talk:Systems programming

A few changes
I changed a few things, I:
 * removed the pseudo-definition of programming, and replaced it by referring to the programming article;
 * removed the "for computers" part, because system software is always for computers so there's no ambiguity to resolve;
 * removed examples of systems software, because that's the job of the system software article and this article is strictly about _programming_ system software;
 * removed the comment about SIC, which was irrelevant;
 * removed the comment about logging and monitoring, because those things are in no way specific to systems programming;
 * added some characteristics;
 * presented the characteristics in list form, and changed the description of programming languages to more accurately reflect the actual criteria;
 * made some minor additional changes.

-- Eelis 23:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Proposed merge with System software

 * 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)

- 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

system programmers and system administrators
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)

Vague definition, citation needed
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)

Alternative characterization
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)