The Programming Talent Myth (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#71

Post by thoughtsimple » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

I used to be a "rock star" programmer. I could run rings around my coworkers. I wrote an embedded OS for running machine tools (I had help.) Back then, you read books and memorized everything. I knew x86 assembly and could use a logic analyzer to debug my code. This was in the 80's.

Now the amount of knowledge required to do even mundane tasks is an order of magnitude more. No one can memorize all the APIs and frameworks needed to do their jobs programming. I couldn't work without search. I don't memorize anything anymore. I work on dozens of different technologies.

Basically, I've become a mediocre programmer at a large number of different programming tasks where once I was expert at a very few. I'm the same person but the meaning of what is a programmer has changed over time. I'm OK with that.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#72

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

denimnerd wrote: post #63

vinceguidry wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah, that's what it means, right? If you pay me $50k per year and invest $20k of company resources to train me, and the second my training's up, I jump ship to a company promising to pay me $60k, wouldn't you feel ripped off? Nobody these days would turn down a $10k raise out of company loyalty. They might for other reasons, but loyalty is absolutely not one of them anymore.

if completeting the training makes someone worth 10k more then give them that raise.

I don't know why I let myself get sidetracked into this worthless ideological discussion.

Final answer, then I'm getting back to work. Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward. If your reward isn't worth the risk, but you still take it anyway, then you're the dumb one. When you're the one offering liquid compensation, you get to decide on the risk profile of the bought solution.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#73

Post by Will_Parker » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

adam-a wrote: post #25

I think this is absolutely spot on. So many people put their programming expertise or productivity down to some innate quality (that is apparently overabundant in white men). To me it seems nearly every one of those rockstar ninjas has also spent an enormous amount of time learning their trade - usually a lot of time outside of formal school or a 9-5 job. I think if there's one skill that might be innate and that hel…

> So many people put their programming expertise or productivity down to some innate quality

Yes. Some people (both as kids and adults) seem to be innately interested in different kinds of activities. And it is perhaps impossible to separate talent with passionate interest since B leads to A.

Take the kids from my tribe, extremely passionate about patterns and things and systems and numbers and coding from early childhood, _despite_ concern from parents and teachers, social ostracization, and efforts to limit computer time. We also tend to acquire talent.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#74

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #64

HillaryBriss wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all investments carry risks. e.g. if a company invests in a building for their office, there's always a risk that building will incur excessive maintenance expenses, become unusable because of some calamity, or that the location around the building will become a bad neighborhood and make that building a lot less useful. i think a company can invest in, say, teaching their employees a valuable skill and then make mone…

You can insure against risks. You can't against bets. Good luck getting an insurance company to sell you a policy covering training cost recovery in the event of employee-initiated turnover.

Investments are bets. You can totally insure your bets, the term “hedge your bets” exists for a reason.

You seem to be equating bets with gambling for some reason.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#75

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #56

vinceguidry wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an investment, that's giving your money away. Would you spend $X0,000 on something that can walk out the door at any moment?

Apprenticeship has been a thing as long as professions have existed. A common way to justify training an apprentice is to indenture them - they agree to work for you for a set number of years at a given wage, in exchange for training. Then you get professional organizations who negotiate on behalf of trainees/apprentices to make sure that the training wages are fair and the conditions aren't too onerous. Membership i…

Nobody's going to accept indentures in this day and age.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#76

Post by reitanqild » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

Pigo wrote: post #24

EpicEng wrote: post #11

> > The truth is that programming isn't a passion or a talent, it is just a bunch of skills that can be learned. This may be true if your definition of programming is the literal act of writing code / recalling syntax, and learning new tools. Of course, that's not really what programming is. That's the easy part. Programming is about problem solving, code is simply the tool. Critical thinking/problem solving ability,…

I do believe these skills can be learned, but it's the enjoyment I derive from these things that I believe is the difference between some people and I. When I was in junior high I would do various logic problems for fun. I asked for nothing but a TI-85 for my birthday one year. There probably are people who are better than me at coding who hate the work. But I've hated every job I had until someone started paying me…

> I do believe these skills can be learned,

Ex teacher here:

Some people really really seems to have a harder time with certain subjects than others.

I took pride in being a good teacher but I have experienced one person who - despite being normal and being able to keep a normal job - just couldn't grasp the basics of computers.

And by basics I mean:

Connect power cable, press power button, wait for Windows to load, type password and open Internet explorer.

It would stop somewhere in between there each time.

There is nothing wrong with that just like there is nothing wrong with me never being able to become a long haul truck driver (falls asleep), pilot (partially colour blind), or soccer star (hopeless).

> but it's the enjoyment I derive from these things that I believe is the difference between some people and I.

Thus is huge as well. Possibly also underappreciated.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#77

Post by allthenews » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

thoughtsimple wrote: post #71

I used to be a "rock star" programmer. I could run rings around my coworkers. I wrote an embedded OS for running machine tools (I had help.) Back then, you read books and memorized everything. I knew x86 assembly and could use a logic analyzer to debug my code. This was in the 80's. Now the amount of knowledge required to do even mundane tasks is an order of magnitude more. No one can memorize all the APIs and framew…

I don't think programming ability is measured by the number of APIs/libraries one has committed to memory.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#78

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #74

vinceguidry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can insure against risks. You can't against bets. Good luck getting an insurance company to sell you a policy covering training cost recovery in the event of employee-initiated turnover.

Investments are bets. You can totally insure your bets, the term “hedge your bets” exists for a reason. You seem to be equating bets with gambling for some reason.

Self-insurance against the risk of employee defections costing them time and money is exactly what employers are already doing, by not taking on the risk of educating and training employees.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#79

Post by kazinator » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

allthenews wrote: post #77

thoughtsimple wrote: post #71

I used to be a "rock star" programmer. I could run rings around my coworkers. I wrote an embedded OS for running machine tools (I had help.) Back then, you read books and memorized everything. I knew x86 assembly and could use a logic analyzer to debug my code. This was in the 80's. Now the amount of knowledge required to do even mundane tasks is an order of magnitude more. No one can memorize all the APIs and framew…

I don't think programming ability is measured by the number of APIs/libraries one has committed to memory.

Having an accurate and large knowledge of relevant API's will help you program faster and more accurately, and make better design decisions earlier. (You avoid the "if I had known about these API's, I'd have done it differently" situation.)

It's hard not to conclude that this is one axis in the multi-dimensional "ability" space.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#80

Post by learc83 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

lambdaphagy wrote: post #67

btilly wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your calling them "skills" prejudices the answer. My best understanding is that they aren't skills, they are hardwired abilities. My best guess based on research that I've seen on IQ is that about half of the hardwiring is genetic and half is a result of childhood upbringing, but by adulthood they are not readily changed. That said, we build concrete skills around how to make the best use of those abilities. We build…

"Upbringing" can be a slightly misleading way of stating that summary, as most people think of upbringing as comprising environmental factors that parents can influence. But factors that parents can influence should be largely shared between siblings, and studies typically find that the effect of shared environment is quite small in adulthood. IQ researchers typically find that 60-80% of the variance in IQ is explain…

If I remember correctly, the last time I looked into this, there was some doubt about the validity of many of the twin and sibling based IQ studies, because the parents who consented tended to be wealthier.

The upshot was that genetics is probably more of an upper limit on IQ, and that for children raised in poor conditions, environment plays a much bigger role than genetics.