Why the new guy can't code
techcrunch.com
Why the new guy can't code
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#2It's interesting to see an article like this on TC, I was rather surprised at first.
Not sure if I like it or not, it just doesn't seem like their 'core competency'.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#3It's interesting to see an article like this on TC, I was rather surprised at first. Not sure if I like it or not, it just doesn't seem like their 'core competency'.
This writing has a few awesome hum-dingers: "Like many of the hangovers that haunt modern software engineering, this is ultimately mostly Microsoft’s fault," "Yes, I am being deliberately sexist here, because in my experience those women who write code are consistently good at it," and "So what should a real interview consist of? Let me offer a humble proposal: don’t interview anyone who hasn’t accomplished anything. Ever."
When I read his work, I feel like this author writes in a binary way: Either an entity's right, or they're wrong. Period. (Jon Evans or the highway!)
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#4It's interesting to see an article like this on TC, I was rather surprised at first. Not sure if I like it or not, it just doesn't seem like their 'core competency'.
Yeah, I was also surprised with it. But it made me think that this problem is actually getting so big that even techcrunch is talking about it.
Oh, and I actually like their reasoning - I think the software engineering community needs to figure out a better way to interview candidates.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#5I have a completely different approach. I hire people who have worked with a particular technology or ecosystem for a while, because I think that builds the relevant experience and habits. If they are good at things similar to what we are doing, they should be able to pick it up and integrate quickly, and learn more stuff.
And don't underestimate the value of good documentation.
But of course, one prerequisite is absolutely necessary: the ability to approach problems logically. That is what one should look for on top of the domain knowledge.
Besides interview questions, give an interview ASSIGNMENT. Meaning, before you are hired, you have to complete some task. This shows a) commitment to wanting to work here, and b) shows that you can sole the kinds of problems we had to face before.
You know your version control, where someone had to go in and fix some bugs? Well, encapsulate these things as minimum examples (with e.g. javascript errors, maybe a stray comma or something in JSON) and then tell the guy "it doesn't work on IE, please fix it". You know it can be done because it WAS done. That's the kind of stuff they'll need to do at work.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#6 > Smart and Gets Things Done. (Academia is teeming with
> people who are the former but not the latter.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#7> Smart and Gets Things Done. (Academia is teeming with > people who are the former but not the latter. Tired stereotype. Academics at the top of their game know how to get shit done, very much so even. But it's different shit.
Agree. I've had professors that were uber hackers, prolific authors, grant magnets, inspiring educators and thorough gentlemen to boot. That's a lot of 'getting things done'.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#8It's interesting to see an article like this on TC, I was rather surprised at first. Not sure if I like it or not, it just doesn't seem like their 'core competency'.
This writing has a few awesome hum-dingers: "Like many of the hangovers that haunt modern software engineering, this is ultimately mostly Microsoft’s fault," "Yes, I am being deliberately sexist here, because in my experience those women who write code are consistently good at it," and "So what should a real interview consist of? Let me offer a humble proposal: don’t interview anyone who hasn’t accomplished anything.…
Yes. Same for his dissing of Simonyi. Almost seems personal. He might have invented the Hungarian notation, but he also oversaw the development of the most successful enterprise software ever shipped. Most of us are not exactly MS fans, but lets acknowledge 'getting things done' where due.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#9> Smart and Gets Things Done. (Academia is teeming with > people who are the former but not the latter. Tired stereotype. Academics at the top of their game know how to get shit done, very much so even. But it's different shit.
Agree. I've had professors that were uber hackers, prolific authors, grant magnets, inspiring educators and thorough gentlemen to boot. That's a lot of 'getting things done'.
The Techcrunch definition of getting something done is being on their blog: you've announced a (fill buzzword here) product, gotten cash, made a presentation that shows you had potential, said something about an IPO or otherwise drawn their attention. Hard core academics are in the business or startup space: they're starting their research.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#10"degrees are not accomplishments"
Is this really true? Will I be wasting at least five years of my life by taking various CS degrees? I have some professional experience (web dev for a startup) but that's really everything beside school I have time for, and I'm not the only one in this situation.
Some parts of the article were spot-on, but certain assertions seem rather drastic and biased.