The Black Art of Programming - The Computer Boys Take Over - page 39

Throughout the next several decades programmers struggled to dis-
tance themselves from the status (and gender) connotations suggested by
coder. An early manuscript version of the UNIVAC Introduction to
Programming manual, for instance, highlighted the distinction between
the managerial programmer and the technical coder: “In problem prepa-
ration, the detailed work may be accomplished by two individuals. The
fi rst, who may be called the 'programmer,' studies the problem, deter-
mines the appropriate method of solution, and prepares the fl ow chart.
This person must be well versed in the particular fi eld in which the
problem lies, and should also be able to fully exploit the fl exibility and
versatility of the UNIVAC system. The second person, referred to as the
'coder,' need only be familiar with the technique of reducing the fl ow
chart to the specifi c instructions, or coding, required by the UNIVAC to
solve the problem.” 23 By differentiating between these two tasks, one
clerical and the other analytic, the manual reinforced the Goldstine and
von Neumann model of the programmer. In this model the real business
of programming was analysis: the actual coding aspect of programming
was trivial and mechanical. “Problems must be thoroughly analyzed to
determine the many factors that must be taken into consideration,” sug-
gested the same preliminary UNIVAC manual, but once this analysis had
been completed, the “pattern of the [programming] solution would be
readily apparent.” Although this division of the programming process
into two distinct and unequal phases did not survive into the published
version of the UNIVAC documentation, its early inclusion highlighted
the persistence of the programmer/coder distinction.
The Art of Programming
Although they continued to struggle with questions of status and iden-
tity, by the end of the 1950s computer programmers were generally
considered to be anything but routine clerical workers. A Price Waterhouse
report from 1959 titled Business Experience with Electronic Computers
argued that “high quality individuals are the key to top grade program-
ming. Why? Purely and simply because much of the work involved is
exacting and diffi cult enough to require real intellectual ability and above
average personal characteristics.” 24 In fact, the study's authors observed
that “the term 'programmer' is . . . unfortunate since it seems to indicate
that the work is largely machine oriented when this is not at all the
case. . . . [T]raining in systems analysis and design is as important to a
programmer as training in machine coding techniques; it may well