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

Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 140 posts

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#121

Post by [deleted] »

city41 wrote: post #111
steve8918 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. I firmly believe that either you are born with the ability to be a programmer or you're not. That's not saying that it's good or bad, but I believe a lot of it is just how your brain is configured. It's as innate as the ability to shoot baskets, or throw a football, or as innate as gaining energy when interacting with people (extrovert) vs losing energy when interacting with people (introvert).…

In my experience, the people who "get" programming took it up as a kid. If your first program was written in CS 101, then you will not be a good programmer. I've yet to meet anyone who bucks this trend.

[deleted]

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#122

Post by veidr »

dpritchett wrote: post #46
zedshaw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see this largely as a failure of education. You see this issue in many areas and much earlier on like teaching mathematics. In schools there tends to be one method used and that method doesn't suit everybody. I've found that education, at least K-12, is slowly shifting attitudes from 'Why are students so dumb?' to 'How can we teach this better?' Computer Science is notoriously bad at believing the former over the…

It would be a lot easier to teach CS to 18 year olds if they had stronger foundations in algebra, logic, and abstractions. When "teach a bunch of freshmen to program" is your mission statement then it's perfectly understandable to prefer the students with solid fundamentals.

Stated another way, it's perfectly understandable that a large percentage of incoming undergrad students can't program at all, when their education up to that point has failed to introduce them algebra and higher mathematics, logic, or reducing complexity through abstraction.

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#123

Post by ceol »

rickmb wrote: post #25
raganwald wrote: post #2

Jeff closes with the following words IN BOLD: “The act of programming seems literally unteachable to a sizable subset of incoming computer science students” There is, of course, an alternate explanation: “We in Universities seem literally incapable of teaching programming to a sizable subset of incoming computer science students” Experiments going back to the 1980s with teaching children how to program using Lego blo…

Methinks age is the most important factor here. We teach children the basics skills needed for most studies well before that age. Reading, writing, math etc. You can't expect someone to successfully study literature if they don't know how to read. Programming is a skill, not just a matter of knowledge, and the foundations for that skill must be laid at an earlier age. Most skills we learn after that are just extensio…

I don't think age is as big a factor as you make it. I learned how to program at about 19 and got right into without any previous programming experience. If programming is indeed a skill, then why can't someone learn it at any age? My father, in his early 50s, is learning the skill of "debugging" his iPad when he needs to do something; instead of calling me, he's starting to use forums and search engines to find his answer. I would consider that a skill, yet he's learning it without having any computer experience at all.

What basic skills are the foundations for programming? Abstract thought? Deductive reasoning? Maybe someone is more inclined towards programming versus some other field, but I believe everyone has— at any age— the ability to learn how to program, much like everyone has the ability to learn a new spoken language at any age.

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#124

Post by ceol »

steve8918 wrote: post #115
angrycoder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this really undermine what it means when someone is good at something, be it coding, throwing a ball, writing, what have you. It is not a matter of being born with it. It isn't a matter of being smart. It is all fucking work. It is never being satisfied. Its trying so hard and getting so pissed off that you throw the ball in the dumpster, that you smash your fist into the keyboard and walk away, that yo…

Just because programming for YOU comes naturally doesn't mean it does for others. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. The point is that people can always learn to be adequate programmers. But if the experience of programming is so different from the way they process information, that the act of programming is mentally uncomfortable for them, then they will never be great. The discomfort has NOTHING to do with har…

It's a huge stretch to assume someone's proficiency in a field is due to a trait they were born with. We don't even know the extent that your environment affects your brain versus your genes, so there's no way you could know people are born programmers.

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#125

Post by Jach »

dodedo wrote: post #113
Jach wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Python's a great language to start with, maybe. What turned me on to PHP and web programming is that I could do things easily and get visual results back. Flask is a better way to build server side apps than raw PHP, but it hides a lot and a significant part of the Python language needs to be understood to understand a lot of it. I spent a year learning about website design shortly after turning 14 and during…

'My CS teacher also resolved many difficulties with the = sign by always reading code like "a = b" as "a gets b"' This is one of the great things about Pascal. The := sign is used for assignment, and the equals sign alone is used for equality. It's very natural to call := 'gets' and keep a clear distinction between assertions and assignments.

I totally agree, := should be used more. (More than once I've had (define := define) in my personal Scheme code.) Unfortunately my enthusiasm in the past has been met with the quip "Any language that uses := as the assignment operator inevitably dooms itself to never becoming more popular than Pascal." Not many people care anymore. (They did at one point; a lot of 80s and some 90s C code is so macro'd up it looks a lot like a dialect of BASIC.)

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#126

Post by edanm »

cletus wrote: post #13

I see this largely as a failure of education. You see this issue in many areas and much earlier on like teaching mathematics. In schools there tends to be one method used and that method doesn't suit everybody. I see this at work. I've known programmers who, when they get a new hire, will basically let them flounder. I guess the basic idea is that if you're "good" you'll "figure it out" (with minimal time investment…

"Children don't know any better so can just learn this way."

This sentence made me think. The image of the brilliant programmer who got his start at the age of 12 has always been, in my mind, proof that some people are born with programming talent and some aren't (not to say they can't develop it).

But what if, the only difference is that someone happened to start programming at a young age because he was interested it for some irrelevant reason, and because he was young, he learned it much more easily, in much the same way kids learn languages more easily than adults.

An interesting idea. In the real world, people's ability is probably a factor of both these things.

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#128

Post by [deleted] »

parfe wrote: post #29
cletus wrote: post #13

I see this largely as a failure of education. You see this issue in many areas and much earlier on like teaching mathematics. In schools there tends to be one method used and that method doesn't suit everybody. I see this at work. I've known programmers who, when they get a new hire, will basically let them flounder. I guess the basic idea is that if you're "good" you'll "figure it out" (with minimal time investment…

> I see this largely as a failure of education. You see this issue in many areas and much earlier on like teaching mathematics. In schools there tends to be one method used and that method doesn't suit everybody. Good thing professional educators are almost as observant as you in regard to teaching. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=differentiated+instruction I really love how HN conceit lets people post about entire industries a…

[deleted]

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#129

Post by Volpe »

smallblacksun wrote: post #114
angrycoder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this really undermine what it means when someone is good at something, be it coding, throwing a ball, writing, what have you. It is not a matter of being born with it. It isn't a matter of being smart. It is all fucking work. It is never being satisfied. Its trying so hard and getting so pissed off that you throw the ball in the dumpster, that you smash your fist into the keyboard and walk away, that yo…

>So it isn't pixie dust, it isn't innate ability, it isn't being smart. It is all fucking work. No, it isn't. I knew a girl in high school who worked far harder than I ever did, and had far worse grades (particularly in math and science). She literally spent 2-3 hours every day doing homework and studying, while I spent 15-30 minutes. If you talked to her, she seemed perfectly normal, she just had tremendous difficul…

Could it be the reverse?

That is you didn't have a natural gift, she had a problem learning the way everyone else was?

Re: Coding Horror: Separating Programming Sheep from Non-Programming Goats

#130

Post by Volpe »

steve8918 wrote: post #109
cletus wrote: post #13

I see this largely as a failure of education. You see this issue in many areas and much earlier on like teaching mathematics. In schools there tends to be one method used and that method doesn't suit everybody. I see this at work. I've known programmers who, when they get a new hire, will basically let them flounder. I guess the basic idea is that if you're "good" you'll "figure it out" (with minimal time investment…

I completely disagree. I firmly believe that either you are born with the ability to be a programmer or you're not. That's not saying that it's good or bad, but I believe a lot of it is just how your brain is configured. It's as innate as the ability to shoot baskets, or throw a football, or as innate as gaining energy when interacting with people (extrovert) vs losing energy when interacting with people (introvert).…

I'm curious how this 'born programmer' thing works.

So you are basically saying there is a gene (or sequence of genes) that predisposes you to programming. Could you elaborate on how that might work?

Twin studies have shown a lot about personality being more genetic that was thought before. But I don't know of any brain studies that have linked knowledge/intellectual capacity to genetics... Do you have a reference?

Or is it literally as you say, just a belief? like "I firmly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

Post reply on HN