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

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#31

Post by gdp »

bfung wrote: post #26
derefr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#32

Post by amalcon »

gdp wrote: post #9
roedog88 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What about certifying the software that Joe the developer creates, rather than Joe the developer? There's a simple reason why - it costs x to certify 1 developer, and y to certify a piece of software. For most software, "y" is still too expensive to offset the potential damage caused by software failure (compared to a jetliner, where the potential cost is huge). A programmer may create hundreds or even thousands of…

The problem is that we need to guess at what x and y are for particular levels of confidence. We can't use real-world numbers, because none of the existing developer certification programs grant sufficient confidence.

You can guess one way -- as you clearly do -- and it looks like the up-front developer certification cost dwarfs the software certification cost when amortized over all projects. This might remain true even when multiple developers are considered.

You can also guess another way -- as I do -- and it looks like the up-front and recurring costs to properly certify a developer and maintain that certification would be very large. It could be so large that, even when amortized across many projects, it's still comparable to (or even more costly than) certifying the individual projects.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#33

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

axod wrote: post #6
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…

>> "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 and demand useful knowledge and training

I doubt most developers would say that licensing pilots or physicians is useless but that's essentially the same thing as claiming that certifying programmers is useless.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#34

Post by skolor »

huhtenberg wrote: post #18
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…

An anecdote. Back in late 90s I managed to get second best score in the country (for that year) in Visual Basic exam under Microsoft Certified Solution Developer program. The catch was that I had have never written a single line in Visual Basic nor had I have any substantial database development experience. So, yeah, it is entirely possible to get certified and not know a thing about a certification subject. Guy's go…

A similar anecdote (although not directly related to programming):

I got my MCSA while in high school. When Microsoft offer the Dreamspark certifications, I jumped on the free upgrade test, and went and took it. I spent an hour or so studying for it, and got >900. Does that mean I am qualified to manage a Windows 2008 domain? Maybe. What it does mean, however, is that I am at least somewhat familiar with the tools that are available.

While this may not be the same situation for programming certifications, I know for a fact that the MSCx certs have been helpful. While I don't know the ins and outs of maintaining a server, I am consistently shocked when I talk to a "server guy" who doesn't understand Active Directory structure at all, or the various types of inheritance that go on in Windows. I may not know everything, but at least I know what I don't know.

That, I think, is the biggest benefit of a certification. It may not show what you do or do not know, but it does show that you at least know of the topics, which is more than can be said about many people.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#35

Post by cschneid »

synnik wrote: post #19

I've always said that certifications are a base level of competence for a job, not a proof of expertise. When a senior dev rants about how they don't need a certificate, I agree, but counter them with the question: If certificates are so easy to get and meaningless, why haven't you bothered to get them? Note: I can think of a number of reasonable answers why not... but their response to that question is often enlight…

In my opinion, they signal different things to different hiring entities.

To a big corp, it signals that you play by the rules, and that a 3rd party has vouched for you.

To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect things spoonfed.

I'm not saying either is wrong, but they are different mindsets, large companies have more need to order than small companies.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#36

Post by timwiseman »

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.

I don't think you should hire on the basis of any certification, but they make an excellent flag as to whether someon should get the interview.

Even in screening resumes it absolutely should not be your only deciding factor, but it is one good factor to look for when going through large stacks of resumes.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#37

Post by johnohara »

A former field service rep of mine now runs ads on the local cable news channel selling mortgage refinancing packages.

I was sitting there one night thinking 'I know that guy.' And I did. He looks good on tv too. Lost some weight, big smile, nice clothes, smooth delivery -- same as when he used to say, "I not really sure, let me call Colorado and escalate this."

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#39

Post by timwiseman »

cschneid wrote: post #35
synnik wrote: post #19

I've always said that certifications are a base level of competence for a job, not a proof of expertise. When a senior dev rants about how they don't need a certificate, I agree, but counter them with the question: If certificates are so easy to get and meaningless, why haven't you bothered to get them? Note: I can think of a number of reasonable answers why not... but their response to that question is often enlight…

In my opinion, they signal different things to different hiring entities. To a big corp, it signals that you play by the rules, and that a 3rd party has vouched for you. To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect things spoonfed. I'm not saying either is wrong, but they are different mindsets, large companies have more need to order than small companies.

To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect things spoonfed.

I don't think they say that at all. Now, I do get that impression about some people that list tons of training classes on their resume (especially the ones that list training classes without an accompanying certification).

Personally, I hold an MCBDA, MCITP, and A+ certifications. I pepared for the MCDBA and MCITP on my own through a combination of books, websites, and hands on toying with the systems. I prepared for the A+ in a peer group. I have had a mentor that taught me a tremendous amount, but I never took formal classes for any of it, or expected any of it to be spoonfed.

Re: Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

#40

Post by gloob »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #38
henning wrote: post #14

> Joe the Plumber heard that you can make more money programming than plumbing and decided to suddenly become a programmer. Where did Joe the Plumber get that misinformation?

From a certified developer.

From a developer certifier.
Post reply on HN