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

The programming talent myth

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 354 posts

Re: The programming talent myth

#11

Post by taeric »

belovedeagle wrote: post #2

The problem with the argument that "Programming skill can't be bimodal because that would be elitist and make me feel bad about myself being an elitist" is that there's a lot of evidence that programming skill is bimodal. Look at fizzbuzz as an obvious, if not entirely complete, example. Would it make us all feel better if programming skill weren't bimodal? Sure. But a roomful of people clapping at that proposition d…

Isn't this akin to claiming that drawing is bimodal because most people can't draft a portrait in an interview. Or, worse, that there is an element of gender influence in ability because, "otherwise there would be more female programmers."

I certainly agree that there is likely a gulf between good and great. Probably another above it. I'm curious to know what actual evidence there is.

Re: The programming talent myth

#12

Post by exstudent2 »

gaius wrote: post #6
exstudent2 wrote: post #4

> If the only options are to be amazing or terrible, it leads people to believe they must be passionate about their career, that they must think about programming every waking moment of their life. If they take their eye off the ball even for a minute, they will slide right from amazing to terrible again. That leads people to be working crazy hours at work, to be constantly studying programming topics on their own ti…

99% of the software that actually matters - medical devices, air traffic control, credit card processing, phone switches, you name it - is written by people who work 9-5 and don't think about their jobs outside work. If all the websites programmed by "rock stars" shutdown overnight, the next week everyone would have forgotten they ever existed.

Having worked on several systems like that, I can say there are definitely passionate developers behind any serious code. An "old guy" I know that has lead development on several extremely high volume payment processing systems has the most extensive personal CS library I've ever seen.

No one is writing high performance code without deep knowledge of what they're doing.

Re: The programming talent myth

#13

Post by dataker »

One the main issues with such collectivist argument is that programming is more than solely 'programming'.

A great developer innovates, organizes, leads and motivates other programmers in a way others are not able to do. Kaplan-Moss is a perfect example of it.

For example, maybe, it's true that anyone is able to build a CRUD website.

However, maybe, not everyone is able to start and manage an open-source project.

Re: The programming talent myth

#14

Post by lampe3 »

smitherfield wrote: post #7
belovedeagle wrote: post #2

The problem with the argument that "Programming skill can't be bimodal because that would be elitist and make me feel bad about myself being an elitist" is that there's a lot of evidence that programming skill is bimodal. Look at fizzbuzz as an obvious, if not entirely complete, example. Would it make us all feel better if programming skill weren't bimodal? Sure. But a roomful of people clapping at that proposition d…

I think you can break it down further into four groups. People who, when presented with FizzBuzz on their first day of learning programming would: (1) Not even try, because it's "too confusing." (c. 90% of the population). (2) Be able to finish only with significant assistance from others. (3) Be able to finish on their own through trial and error. (4) Finish quickly, and wonder why they were asked to solve such a bo…

so lets say if i solve fizzbuzz quickly iam clever. i have solved it but in a shitty confusing way but i have solved it. but someone who solves it through trial and error and learns new stuff about what can go wrong and how it works is not so clever?

coding is always trail and error because you cant think of all the possibilities and through error you learn and become better so yeah give me more of 3 then of 4

Re: The programming talent myth

#16

Post by vonmoltke »

tines wrote: post #10
gaius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the software that actually matters - medical devices, air traffic control, credit card processing, phone switches, you name it - is written by people who work 9-5 and don't think about their jobs outside work. If all the websites programmed by "rock stars" shutdown overnight, the next week everyone would have forgotten they ever existed.

But the software that was used to write that 99% of software that actually matters was probably written by "rock stars" in their spare time.

Not really. Matlab, WindRiver RTOS, LabView, Visual Studio, Intellij, and a whole bunch of other critical tools in that area were not written by hobbyists.

Re: The programming talent myth

#17

Post by cmenge »

It's not that programming skill (whatever that is) is bimodal, it's the effectiveness of the engineer in a typical development scenario. That stems at least partly from the fact that programming is hardly ever a one-person endeavor, contrary to running.

Since scaling a team increases friction and overhead, a small number of highly skilled engineers can be absurdly more effective than a set of teams, which also makes them more valuable, but not necessarily as extreme as in sports. Add preferential attachment to the equation (good engineers try to work with other good engineers / hire only top talent), and the U-curve starts to make sense IMHO.

Re: The programming talent myth

#18

Post by diminoten »

There is a myth, but the myth propels reality. Take this line in the article as a reason:

> That leads people to be working crazy hours at work, to be constantly studying programming topics on their own time, and so on.

This attitude will create ninjas/rockstars/whatever, even if the original notion isn't true. Folks who spend every waking hour thinking about and learning about something are going to be better than the folks who don't do that level of effort.

I agree that programming skill is going to shape itself into a bell curve, but I would also argue that a bump exists in the 3rd or 4th standard deviation, with all the folks who've been driven (for good or bad reasons) to eat/drink/breathe programming.

The thrust of the article is that it's okay to be mediocre, and I agree, but I don't think it's healthy to be satisfied with where you are in any skill-based craft. It's more healthy to be okay that you're not already better (I'm not a rockstar yet), but being okay with not getting better is a toxic thought.

Re: The programming talent myth

#19

Post by belovedeagle »

taeric wrote: post #11
belovedeagle wrote: post #2

The problem with the argument that "Programming skill can't be bimodal because that would be elitist and make me feel bad about myself being an elitist" is that there's a lot of evidence that programming skill is bimodal. Look at fizzbuzz as an obvious, if not entirely complete, example. Would it make us all feel better if programming skill weren't bimodal? Sure. But a roomful of people clapping at that proposition d…

Isn't this akin to claiming that drawing is bimodal because most people can't draft a portrait in an interview. Or, worse, that there is an element of gender influence in ability because, "otherwise there would be more female programmers." I certainly agree that there is likely a gulf between good and great. Probably another above it. I'm curious to know what actual evidence there is.

I imagine that drawing is probably bimodal too; it probably just has a wider bell curve on the right...

Re: The programming talent myth

#20

Post by exstudent2 »

taeric wrote: post #11
belovedeagle wrote: post #2

The problem with the argument that "Programming skill can't be bimodal because that would be elitist and make me feel bad about myself being an elitist" is that there's a lot of evidence that programming skill is bimodal. Look at fizzbuzz as an obvious, if not entirely complete, example. Would it make us all feel better if programming skill weren't bimodal? Sure. But a roomful of people clapping at that proposition d…

Isn't this akin to claiming that drawing is bimodal because most people can't draft a portrait in an interview. Or, worse, that there is an element of gender influence in ability because, "otherwise there would be more female programmers." I certainly agree that there is likely a gulf between good and great. Probably another above it. I'm curious to know what actual evidence there is.

Drawing seems like a great analogy because it definitely is also bimodal. Some people can draft a portrait in an interview and those people would be the ones you would want to hire to be your portrait artists.
Post reply on HN