Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally like how nyan cat becomes vampire cat when you turn off the light...
I can't find the key to the safe edit: I'm having too much fun.
Talk to one of the pictures. :)
My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
91–100 of 113 posts
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd put 5 at "wrote the language or contributed to the language". So 1-5 on Python where 1 is completed first tutorial book, written a non-trivial program. 5 == Guido Rostrum / contributed to a release. 3-4 would be if you have written a compiler.
"Guido van Rossum".
He put == not ===.
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#93I really like the skills section http://nukaco.la/skills.html I wish this was standard practice for resumes, even though it's subjective assessment it's really easy to compare relative strengths and weaknesses, for example it's very easy to see "dabbled in haskell, very proficient in garage band" just by glancing
I found it hard to figure how my resume could summarize the breadth of my knowledge. I ended up putting a table up with "Good knowledge of", "Some knowledge" and "Worked with" in my resume, listing each skill under one of the three headings. Gives a pretty general idea. Then again, during interviews for the job I'll be starting soon no one asked me a single technical question.
If it's a technical job and nobody asked you a technical question - you're probably better steering clear!
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't let pedantic nerds get you down. It's fine. Full disclosure: I too am a pedantic nerd.
Wasn't trying to be pedantic, just giving feedback. In fact I totally respect the relativity of the scale, I would just say if it was for a job interview you'd want to maybe do as you said and adjust on a larger scale. My point was 2 months in JS != 40% knowledge of JS. If that came across as pedantic, I apologize.
It might be a weighted 40%. As in, she knows 40% of what she needs to know or will encounter in real-world JS... or she's 40% as productive as she'd be with maximal fluency. There's probably a Zipf's Law over programming idioms where you can pick up the first half in a few months, the next quarter takes a year or so, and the last quarter takes more than a decade to encounter, comprehend, and be able to use masterfully.
Using a frequency-weighted metric, I would say that I'm 70-95% fluent (unknown unknowns make it hard to get confidence in a number) in my best languages, but I'm not an expert in any of them (and I'd only rate myself 3-3.5 on a 5-point scale, because percentage fluency on first-order concepts isn't the only important thing). I don't think it's hard to get to that point. Getting those last few percentage points is much harder.
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#95I'm most impressed with the 8-bit sound umbrella.
I saw that umbrella in Amsterdam @ MHD. Sadly, they just showed how it worked but not how it was made.
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#96This is a good example of how people should learn coding. Not doing examples but doing something that is very goal directed (for her doing a website). Exercises should help you understand how to do a final goal. This is pretty impressive for only 3 months of study also.
I've been bugging my friend that he should learn to code a website for the past few years. And for the past few years, he's been stating that "its not for me" or that "I'm not the techie type". I hear this all the time from people who don't know anything about coding.
A few months ago I showed him a demo of my website (artJutsu.com WIP) and showed him the basics behind the code. I also showed him how to create a simple site. The dev site (on my laptop) has many different concepts that I'm still hammering out. To him it looks complex, so I told him that it doesn't have to be.
I gave him the following advice for why one does create a program. "Just think of a "simple" problem that you'd like to fix. It doesn't have to be super robust, or super smart, or super technical. Just try to solve this problem through an elegant interface."
For me, artJutsu (once I get the main part completed) will solve a variety of small problems. Yes, there are things in it that is very complicated, but that comes from research. We're in an amazing time as developers where we can access a rich array of resources just with a simple Google search. The great thing is, the simplest solution usually solves the problem just as well.
I always was the type of person that hated reading those coding books and doing lesson after lesson with very little getting done. For the most part, you don't really know WHY you need to know techniques and theory. Its just way too confusing. I find getting down and dirty building something teaches you a lot more. Theory is great, but what good is it if you don't know that you need to know it? I believe that getting your feet wet will enhance the traditional learning experience.
Anyway, after a month of coding, my friend has created a pretty good "list" site for his wife. He's at the point where its getting tough to maintain his code, but he loves it. The joy of creating a useful tool to solve a problem is what we thrive on.
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't sense any Dunning Kruger in her self assessment. Indicators for that state of mind are actually fairly easy to spot, e.g. when you see someone quoting it without any further justification.
Not her's, but the parent comment.
"I’m no doctor, but I’m afraid you be exhibiting symptoms of illin’." :)
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#98Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#99I really like the skills section http://nukaco.la/skills.html I wish this was standard practice for resumes, even though it's subjective assessment it's really easy to compare relative strengths and weaknesses, for example it's very easy to see "dabbled in haskell, very proficient in garage band" just by glancing
It looks neat, but I'm not sure it would help her find work, if that was the purpose of it. People seem to be more likely to find and hire you when you're easily classifiable—say, “JavaScript front-end developer”, or “Mixing engineer”.
I'm sure many people are good (or could be good) at many unrelated activities. I had an idea of personal portfolio that would encompass all of my interests and work, too. But in the end I chose to market myself as “just” a programmer. Knowing about my proficiency in Logic or InDesign or playing piano won't help anyone looking for a programmer, and if by chance I rate my Python skill lower than InDesign or, say, OS X skill, I'm pretty sure it will turn away many paying clients.
I decided to go with discrete “brands” for various activities. Failing at that currently, though (hard to manage).
Re: My GF learned to code in 3 months. This is what she came up with.
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if rating one's skills in a particular subject with a 1-5 rating under no context bears much meaning... it's so arbitrary as to be insignificant (but it could be a cool concept if not abused). It also depends on one's motivation for representing their skill level; for example, jobseekers probably overestimate their skill levels. It would be great to have a standardized rating system based on a few different tiers…
I'd put 5 at "wrote the language or contributed to the language". So 1-5 on Python where 1 is completed first tutorial book, written a non-trivial program. 5 == Guido Rostrum / contributed to a release. 3-4 would be if you have written a compiler.
Since the scale is only 1-5, saying that only a few people in the world qualify as a 5 or even 4 wastes 20% or even 40% of the expressiveness of the scale, which makes it pretty useless. It's better to round in the other direction, and think of the scale as logarithmic. If most people in the world won't have any ratings in the 4-5 range, that makes it pretty useless for comparing your own proficiency in the languages you do know, which is the entire point of the exercise, not comparing yourself to the people who designed the language. The interesting thing she's trying to express is how much better she knows JavaScript than Ruby, not how good she is compared to Brendan Eich or Matz.