How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

"When, in the late sixties, it became abundantly clear that we did not know how to program well enough, people concerned with Programming Methodology tried to figure out what a competent programmer's education should encompass. As a result of that effort programming emerged as a tough engineering discipline with a strong mathematical flavour. This conclusion has never been refuted, many, however, have refused to draw it for the unattractiveness of its implications, such as

1. good programming is probably beyond the intellectual abilities of today's "average programmer"

2. to do, hic et nunc, the job well with today's army of practitioners, many of whom have been lured into a profession beyond their intellectual abilities, is an insoluble problem

3. our only hope is that, by revealing the intellectual contents of programming, we will make the subject attracting the type of students it deserves, so that a next generation of better qualified programmers may gradually replace the current one.

The above implications are certainly unattractive: their social implications are severe, and the absence of a quick solution is disappointing to the impatient. Opposition to and rejection of the findings of programming methodology are therefore only too understandable. We should remember that the conclusion about the intrinsically mathematical nature of the programming task has been made on technical grounds, and that its rejection is always for political or emotional reasons."

EWD611 (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EW...)

Programming is about representing the world with structures that are adaptable to how the world really changes, so it pays off to read books about human psychology (normal and abnormal), statistics, game theory, and war.

When you get a intuitive feeling for how the world morphs and changes around you according to stimuli, then better code structures strike you, and those superior code structures will have much longer lifespans and will be more adaptable to the needs that the users don't know they have yet. It's all about predicting the future, and in order to predict the future of a complex worldly system, you have to KNOW it inside and out.

So many sentences in bold, yet so little substance. What he seems to be saying is that to be a better interface between development and customers/management/etc requires more than pure programming ability. Yeah, ok. And maybe this is beneficial for business or, if there really is a lack of this talent, for career prospects. But it's not being a better programmer. The pithy title is not very relevant to the content.

As regards the pithy title though, and the earlier part of the article, I disagree. Programmers can and do develop. There is a large difference in ability between people who stick with the craft for a large number of years (and actively develop their abilities), and those who are new to it. When I was younger I would have probably agreed, yeah, programmers are just good or bad (and I'm good). But I wasn't good. I've become better since. And there's still a lot to learn and pursue. It takes time.

Having said that, it's definitely possible not to progress as a developer despite programming every day. It requires some amount of contemplation.

"Most real world code is not lambda calculus but a barely controlled mess."

Beautifully put.

"I agree with Bill. From what I've seen, there's just no crossing the skill chasm as a software developer. You've either got it, or you don't. No amount of putting your nose to the grindstone will change that."

This is a very condescending look on humanity and I did not know that Jeff had said such things.

To anyone thinking the same, let me introduce you to the concept of deliberate practice (how to really improve a skill) and please, even if it wasn't published then, read "Talent Is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin. This will probably change your perception on things like excellence, creativity, so-called "talent" and whether it's true that you must be born a genius to become one.

And by the way, that does not mean that everything is an american dream and that anyone can become a self-made person. Geoff shows through many examples and studies in his book that superstars in music, sports, and science had an exceptional learning environment in their childhood. They did not suffer from hunger and extreme poverty. He also talk about a study that demonstrated that ordinary people could increase their short term memory (remembering up to 100 items if I recall correctly, no pun intended) by doing deliberate practice.