Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#91

Post by mquander »

Swannie wrote: post #90
edw519 wrote: post #16

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. What a scary thought. Good thing it's not true. One of the many reasons I became a programmer was that the sky was the limit. Still is. Want to learn something new? Learn it. Want to build something cool? Build it. The only real l…

I'll add one real reason: - Explaining why code is "sub standard" is hard.

It's not that hard. There are lots of objective criteria you can apply to show that one piece of code is better than an alternative: it's more efficient, it's more extensible, it's more reusable, it's less lines of code, it's less prone to error X when programmer Y tries to use it.

The hard part is actually convincing a human that something they did is sub-standard based on a set of objective criteria.

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#93

Post by dj_axl »

asimjalis wrote: post #44

There are two types of people: those who peak early and those who evolve gradually but steadily over a longer period.

This is missing what I will quote from another post above "If they really believe in something they will work on it and become better." If you peak at something this makes you good. If you work ard at something this makes you good. If you peak at something and work on it and become better, this makes you great. Evolving gradually but steadily might increase one's belief that hard work is rewarded, however you will never become great, merely good.

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#94

Post by wging »

Joeri wrote: post #89
jdietrich wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't writing software like chess or sport? The highest ranked player in the world is twenty years old. Any local chess club is full of people who have studied the game for years but failed to break 1400. I've taught people who were just incapable of the most rudimentary strategic thinking and people who just naturally saw things that it took me years to learn. The evidence is clear that there are people in the w…

"Why couldn't mental stamina be as genetically ingrained as physical stamina? There are obviously natural geniuses in our field, why not natural dunces?" Are there really natural geniuses? To me a natural genius is someone who from the start performs at a high level, and I don't know of any such programmers. Maybe it's just that some people can move faster on the growth curve than others, but everyone can reach the s…

But isn't 'moving faster on the growth curve' exactly what it means to be a natural genius? Mozart didn't pick up the violin and instantly compose symphonies, but his talent helped him pick it up at an early age.

And aren't you assuming that everyone's rate of improvement is necessarily going to be fast enough, in the long term, for them to reach 'high echelons' (or even a reasonable level of competence) before they die of old age?

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#95

Post by wging »

michaelochurch wrote: post #86
edw519 wrote: post #16

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. What a scary thought. Good thing it's not true. One of the many reasons I became a programmer was that the sky was the limit. Still is. Want to learn something new? Learn it. Want to build something cool? Build it. The only real l…

Many of these reasons are the same: inability to pivot and adapt to adverse circumstances. For example, you cited "they had to build on top of pre-existing shit and couldn't do it right" as a creator of bad programmers. You sound like a college student on this one, because this is the norm in the software industry. Every programmer (good and bad) has faced this one several times. The difference between bad and good p…

Did you mean to write '100 lines/month' up there, or is that an exaggeration for comic effect? I have little experience with bad programmers--but you seem to know enough (or think you do) to throw percentages out there.

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#96

Post by true_religion »

edw519 wrote: post #16

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. What a scary thought. Good thing it's not true. One of the many reasons I became a programmer was that the sky was the limit. Still is. Want to learn something new? Learn it. Want to build something cool? Build it. The only real l…

> One of the many reasons I became a programmer was that the sky was the limit. Still is. Want to learn something new? Learn it. Want to build something cool? Build it. The only real limitations are your belief that you can do it and your willingness to perservere until you do.

That's not what he's saying.

He's divided the world into two peoples: those with the capacity to program and those who cannot regardless of effort.

These groups are often confused because people can program, but only may do so badly. Yet even being a poor programmer puts you in group A, and effort will make you a better programmer.

On the other hand, there are those who cannot program: cannot write a loop, cannot use variables, cannot create a working algorithm even with copy and paste.

The may perhaps be able to do simple math, but when it comes to composing equations or functions together into an interdependent process...they are simply unable.

They may try if they're so inclined to learn programming, but they'd die of old age before they can even begin to reach a standard that we'd call mediocre.

That is what he is say. Agree or disagree with it, but misunderstanding it skews the discussion.

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#97

Post by jeangenie »

mquander wrote: post #91
Swannie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add one real reason: - Explaining why code is "sub standard" is hard.

It's not that hard. There are lots of objective criteria you can apply to show that one piece of code is better than an alternative: it's more efficient, it's more extensible, it's more reusable, it's less lines of code, it's less prone to error X when programmer Y tries to use it. The hard part is actually convincing a human that something they did is sub-standard based on a set of objective criteria.

for crying out loud, stop saying objective; it's meaningless.

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#98

Post by mquander »

jeangenie wrote: post #97
mquander wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that hard. There are lots of objective criteria you can apply to show that one piece of code is better than an alternative: it's more efficient, it's more extensible, it's more reusable, it's less lines of code, it's less prone to error X when programmer Y tries to use it. The hard part is actually convincing a human that something they did is sub-standard based on a set of objective criteria.

for crying out loud, stop saying objective; it's meaningless.

They're objective in that people agree on them. All programmers would say that a more efficient or shorter or more reusable piece of code is better, notwithstanding other tradeoffs that it makes.

My use of "objective" is to distinguish from subjective criteria that people often don't agree on, like "it's more idiomatic" or "it's simpler."

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#99

Post by gwern »

Times like this, I wish everyone could be made to read _The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance_ ( http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5317066/cambridge-expertise.pdf ) or at least the original deliberate-practice paper ( http://www.gwern.net/docs/1993-ericsson-deliberatepractice.p... ).

Re: How To Become A Better Programmer By Not Programming

#100

Post by gwern »

choxi wrote: post #65

I hate that Bill Gates quote, why would you cite the opinion of a guy who isn't known for his programming ability nor has any history of hiring good programmers?

Well, the thing is, Gates was an expert programmer. His coding on BASIC was impressive. He transitioned to management pretty quickly, but that doesn't mean much.
Post reply on HN