Yes, and I think I also made clear that I don't accept you using solely that definition to discredit and downplay achievements of people not concentrated on a fringe of things. Your comment is the elitist as hell.
For example, someone writing a huge distributed video processing system rarely needs to consider any of these topics. Because everything needed in that range is built. Making sure that the data is at the right place at the right time and predicting that needs none of the skill given by you. Is that person not a professional?
Expecting professional programmers to be familiar with "runtime systems, detailed memory management and algorithmic complexity" is "elitist as hell"?
That's one of the reasons the industry is lead by charlatans pushing the latest fad, doesn't know it's own history, and has built pile upon pile of cruft.
>For example, someone writing a huge distributed video processing system rarely needs to consider any of these topics. Because everything needed in that range is built.
Blind reliance upon things build by others, the characteristics of which one building the "video processing system" you describe is not able to assess, and is not able to modify to suit the project's specific needs. That we accept that is a lowering of the profession. It's like doctors deciding it's no need to know pathology and anatomy anymore, because there are expert systems they can use.
For example, someone writing a huge distributed video processing system rarely needs to consider any of these topics. Because everything needed in that range is built. Making sure that the data is at the right place at the right time and predicting that needs none of the skill given by you. Is that person not a professional?