Live data from Hacker News

Signs that you're a bad programmer

sites.google.com

11–20 of 131 posts

Re: Signs that you're a bad programmer

#11
post #5

I'm skeptical of these lists because people can work through things. For example, the stuff listed under "Inability to determine the order of program execution" is something that many people will get jammed on eary on as they try to take their brains (which is honed on the syntax of school level maths) into the programing world (where equals is an instruction rather than an assumptions). Another one is "Lisp is opaqu…

"It's very sweet for MIT types to make these declarations from mount olympus, but lisp is something that can take time to acquire."

Don't worry. In the Valley, people from MIT don't have a good reputation as great programmers. For some reason, their education is a lot of 'theory' and less practice.

Apart from Standford\Caltech, Some of the best schools that produce great programmers are your average state school.

I have a theory behind this, which may be correct. Learning to be a great programmer takes years, and school is just the start. People that do well enough go to something like MIT, think they are already very smart, and don't try hard when they come out.

But if you are hungry, and smart, and just happen to go to your average state school, you probably will do better, as you probably are humbler to begin with.

It seems when the rubber meets the street, in startups, building products, that's where the great programmers are made, and lisp is not a requirement to know to be a great programmer, or actually build great products. Having an idea of what functional languages are is a must, knowing them is not.

Re: Signs that you're a bad programmer

#12
post #4

This is spot on: 5. Lisp is opaque to you

I can't learn LISP. I can get reasonable work done in imperative functional/OO languages like Perl, C, Java, etc. and took the time to learn Erlang to get a look at functional programming and I can drop the SQL bomb like nothing else (so I can do declarative too) but every time I've sat down to learn LISP because people say it will make me a better programmer, I've gotten distracted and haven't finished.

I don't think this makes me stupid, or a bad programmer. I think it means I have different tastes and limited time. Learning LISP feels like learning assembly: a great exercise, but there are other things I'm more interested in doing - like building things I enjoy with my limited free time.

That being said, maybe I am stupid, or a bad programmer. I don't think not being into LISP means this is the case. I like building things people use, more than I like writing elegant code for code's sake.

Re: Signs that you're a bad programmer

#14
post #5

I'm skeptical of these lists because people can work through things. For example, the stuff listed under "Inability to determine the order of program execution" is something that many people will get jammed on eary on as they try to take their brains (which is honed on the syntax of school level maths) into the programing world (where equals is an instruction rather than an assumptions). Another one is "Lisp is opaqu…

This one time I had to work at a place where a postgresql install was not only the main datastore, it was also the main system message bus by abusing notifies. Further the enterprise message bus was a homebrew thing that was written to both pass messages and do RPC, oh and be the main way to monitor if a remote site was up or not. I think both of those count as well.

For those who are curious: given these were linux systems, d-bus was the right answer for the former, and something like RabbitMQ or OpenAMQP, or even JMS solutions would be the proper answer to the latter.

Re: Signs that you're a bad programmer

#15
post #12
post #4

This is spot on: 5. Lisp is opaque to you

I can't learn LISP. I can get reasonable work done in imperative functional/OO languages like Perl, C, Java, etc. and took the time to learn Erlang to get a look at functional programming and I can drop the SQL bomb like nothing else (so I can do declarative too) but every time I've sat down to learn LISP because people say it will make me a better programmer, I've gotten distracted and haven't finished. I don't thin…

I don't think Lisp being opaque has anything to do with your ability to learn a particular PL such as Common Lisp, Scheme, Arc or Clojure. Rather, opacity is usually a term levied at a syntax, when it makes it hard to understand what the underlying semantics of the program are. Lisp has the least "syntax" of any programming language I know of, so if it's opaque to you (e.g., you can't take a guess at what "(+ 2 3)" means), you probably shouldn't be programming.

Re: Signs that you're a bad programmer

#20
post #16

Pageview limit exceeded We are sorry, but this site has exceeded its page view limit at this time. Please try again later. For more information, see Google Sites help.

Does anyone have a mirror for this page?

Mirror: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsites.goog... (Funny, ain't it?)
Post reply on HN