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

Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

gojko.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#41

Post by mosburger »

I've always wondered if the "barrier to entry" was a way to stem the tide of offshoring of IT jobs. If it somehow becomes more difficult for people outside the United States or Europe to become "certified", and large companies start insisting that their work be done by "certified" developers, you'd effectively make it more difficult to hire offshore developers.

Of course, that assumes that it is more difficult to become certified overseas, and I doubt that would ultimately be the case. It'd probably still be financially advantageous for outsourcing firms to invest in the means to certify offshore developers.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#42

Post by axod »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #33
axod wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people money and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses." That's what tests are for.

NO, that's what proper design & development process is for. Testing is only a (small) part of that process and as we've known for decades, you can't test quality into a product. Hell, just a few minutes ago, someone brought me a piece of code that has been HAMMERED on for the last nine months and it still has a bug that wasn't noticed until today! gdp is right: certifications are useful if they are rigorous, targeted…

Not really. Pilots and Physicians are trusted with peoples lives.

Most software is just fun stuff that makes peoples lives slightly better. Only a small amount of software is 'mission critical'.

If software breaks, it usually doesn't cause the loss of life.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#43

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #23
gdp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just an example of a bad certification process. Being able to provide an example of bad certification does not invalidate the entire concept.

Can you give an example of a good certification process for developers? I can't think of a one I would hire based upon.

[deleted]

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#45

Post by c00p3r »

Many people got certificates because it is very hard, difficult and annoying for them to show their abilities or repeat a moderate-difficult task.

Active developer with daily practice does not required any certifying papers. Good developer even didn't hide his code. Piles of high quality code. Look at the people who bring us linux, freebsd, openbsd and thousand other projects.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#46

Post by hernan7 »

roedog88 wrote: post #5
gdp wrote: post #3

Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people money and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses. Joe the Developer doesn't need a certificate, but "we the people" (as in the people who have his software inflicted upon them) would rather he did. The certification argument seems to forget whose benefits from certification. It's not the developer - it's the people who ar…

What about certifying the software that Joe the developer creates, rather than Joe the developer? This is the approach the FAA takes with DO178B for the flight software on the jet planes that we ride. These are very large projects, using hundreds of developers. The quality of the team members varies. Half are below average for the population at large. Adding certification on top of this doesn't change the fact that h…

Do you mean half are below the median?

(Actually, if the rockstar programmer stories are true, then it's way more than half of the programmers that will be below average. Which strengthens your point in a way.)

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#47

Post by amalcon »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #33
axod wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people money and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses." That's what tests are for.

NO, that's what proper design & development process is for. Testing is only a (small) part of that process and as we've known for decades, you can't test quality into a product. Hell, just a few minutes ago, someone brought me a piece of code that has been HAMMERED on for the last nine months and it still has a bug that wasn't noticed until today! gdp is right: certifications are useful if they are rigorous, targeted…

When a pilot or a physician makes a mistake, there is no chance for someone else to correct it. That's why these professions (physicians especially) require expensive certifications, and continuing expenses to keep these certifications current.

Engineers are probably a better comparison: while engineers do have expensive certifications, they aren't the ones doing most of the engineering. Instead, they're the ones verifying that the engineering (done mostly by non-certified engineers) meets the design requirements.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#48

Post by bfung »

gdp wrote: post #31
bfung wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about making the person taking the certification create working, readable programs, and have them submit their answers electronically. Like how programming assignments were in college, except without the rife copying between the participants. I think this test would weed out many people from the very beginning.

You're talking about programming and creating programs. That would be a really, really useless certification.

That would be a really, really useless certification.

Please explain?

The ancestor post by huhtenberg says he obtained certification for Visual Basic although he never wrote a single line of it before. My suggestion for the certification process is to actually use the skill at question, and using that as a basis for obtaining the paper that says "Yes, I can do this proficiently", where the skill in question is software development, not memorizing book knowledge. Why not test software development by making the test taker develop software?

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#49

Post by igrekel »

mosburger wrote: post #41

I've always wondered if the "barrier to entry" was a way to stem the tide of offshoring of IT jobs. If it somehow becomes more difficult for people outside the United States or Europe to become "certified", and large companies start insisting that their work be done by "certified" developers, you'd effectively make it more difficult to hire offshore developers. Of course, that assumes that it is more difficult to bec…

Actually from my experience with offshore companies, they often provide more certified developers and architects and they use this number or ration as a selling point. Sadly I cannot point to any source or statistic to support this.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#50

Post by cousin_it »

halo wrote: post #29
cousin_it wrote: post #11

Woah. People usually oppose certification because it creates barriers to entry. (In particular, I subscribe to this point of view even though I'm a long-time programmer.) Now this guy opposes certification for the opposite reason - that it makes entry into the profession too easy . In a better world this would've been some kind of clever postmodern provocative trick, like Alan Sokal or whatever, but something tells m…

They aren't incompatible viewpoints. As a thought exercise, imagine a job that requires a qualification that has little-to-nothing to do with the actual profession. This would both artificially increase the barrier to entry for people with skills but no qualification, while decreasing the barrier to entry to those without skills who have passed the qualification.

You have a point. Thanks.
Post reply on HN