I think I gave an account of history that is accurate enough on a first order approximation, and it is history as parable to come sideways until I got to the key point of: specialization is a good thing.
Are any of the field divisions I mentioned inaccurate? Or is it the chronology youre objecting to?
This isn't a feel good story, it is a parable. My entire point could be rephrased in a more hostile fashion as: It is not presently feasible to be an expert in every aspect of computing, so why is further division of the field a bad thing?
You could've made that point and probably gotten a decent enough discussion out of it, no harm done.
The problem with the parable is that it didn't read like a parable, and instead read like a layman's explanation of history--were it more clear or disclaimed, I doubt any of us would've taken offense.
Are any of the field divisions I mentioned inaccurate? Or is it the chronology youre objecting to?
This isn't a feel good story, it is a parable. My entire point could be rephrased in a more hostile fashion as: It is not presently feasible to be an expert in every aspect of computing, so why is further division of the field a bad thing?