So you want to learn to code(oncoding.posterous.com)
oncoding.posterous.com
So you want to learn to code
http://oncoding.posterous.com/so-you-want-to-learn-to-code
8 comments
You guys seem to be missing the real point I was trying to make here.
We are in a Not Enough Programmers Boom and it will be followed by a deflations in about 4 or 5 years. I taught CS during the mid 1980's during one of these.
Most of the people who are going to 'learn to code' don't really want to be programmers - they want a job. They aren't going to be competitive when the Bust happens, so they would be better off planning their careers for when that happens than living under the illusion that they are going to be Programmers.
I didn't write this 'poor article' for you guys. I wrote it for the rest of the poor slumps who are being conned by the 'Learn to Code!!!!' hype.
Lighten up.
We are in a Not Enough Programmers Boom and it will be followed by a deflations in about 4 or 5 years. I taught CS during the mid 1980's during one of these.
Most of the people who are going to 'learn to code' don't really want to be programmers - they want a job. They aren't going to be competitive when the Bust happens, so they would be better off planning their careers for when that happens than living under the illusion that they are going to be Programmers.
I didn't write this 'poor article' for you guys. I wrote it for the rest of the poor slumps who are being conned by the 'Learn to Code!!!!' hype.
Lighten up.
Normally I agree that negative feedback isn't useful, but I feel a certain protective outrage at the idea of a journeyman developer reading this and taking it at face value.
People who sit at a computer and don't move for five hours are not role models. And it's sad that in 40 years of development, the author feels the need to repeat baseless stereotypes and jaded opinions.
People who sit at a computer and don't move for five hours are not role models. And it's sad that in 40 years of development, the author feels the need to repeat baseless stereotypes and jaded opinions.
If you wrote this for the "learn to code" people... here's an issue...
You ask several questions of the reader:
"Do you attend Code Retreats? If you do, do you actually write code or do you watch the other guy?"
"Do you create Rails Gems or Python modules in your spare time?"
"Do you try out every new language that you hear about? If you do, how much code do you write? A few hundred lines or do you write an entire subsystem consisting of at least 10,000?"
If the person answers "yes" to these questions, then they're not your "learning to code" audience you claim this article is for, they're people who already know to code. So you're basically saying "If you don't know how to code already you probably shouldn't learn to code." That is horrible advice.
You ask several questions of the reader:
"Do you attend Code Retreats? If you do, do you actually write code or do you watch the other guy?"
"Do you create Rails Gems or Python modules in your spare time?"
"Do you try out every new language that you hear about? If you do, how much code do you write? A few hundred lines or do you write an entire subsystem consisting of at least 10,000?"
If the person answers "yes" to these questions, then they're not your "learning to code" audience you claim this article is for, they're people who already know to code. So you're basically saying "If you don't know how to code already you probably shouldn't learn to code." That is horrible advice.
Yet another random article perpetuating the concept of the "real coder".
Are there things called "real lawyers"? "Real Doctors"? "Real Falafel makers"?
Coding started as a hobby for most "real coders" and ever since the industry has had a hard on for "real coders" - to the point where if you aren't a "real coder" your ONLY choice of action is to go into project management or sales?
Good god, what a messed up industry we have.
Are there things called "real lawyers"? "Real Doctors"? "Real Falafel makers"?
Coding started as a hobby for most "real coders" and ever since the industry has had a hard on for "real coders" - to the point where if you aren't a "real coder" your ONLY choice of action is to go into project management or sales?
Good god, what a messed up industry we have.
Every field has stars and 'everybody else'. Physicians know who to send send their family members to. Quality chef's command more respect and make higher quality food. etc. I speak from experience.
The same is true in programming.
The same is true in programming.
No... every field as a spectrum of talent. From "stars" to "very good" to "competent" to "don't go near that one".
There are VERY FEW "stars". So few that you cannot possibly skew the entire talent base into two buckets (stars, and also rans) as this article does. It's shortsighted and extremely damaging advice, especially for new programmers.
You also cannot hinge your business on hiring only stars - if you do, you're going to spend far too much time finding unicorns when you could be executing with a solid base of professionals. In no other industry have I seen this obsession with finding the "real coder" or the "rockstar developer".
There are VERY FEW "stars". So few that you cannot possibly skew the entire talent base into two buckets (stars, and also rans) as this article does. It's shortsighted and extremely damaging advice, especially for new programmers.
You also cannot hinge your business on hiring only stars - if you do, you're going to spend far too much time finding unicorns when you could be executing with a solid base of professionals. In no other industry have I seen this obsession with finding the "real coder" or the "rockstar developer".
First - how old are you? If you're more than 8 or 9 and aren't already writing code, there's a good chance you're not a 'hard core hacker'
How daft.
How daft.
I'm not sure why people need to start coding at 8 or 9 to be a star coder. I've seen many people who started in college and have become excellent coders.
Article summary: If you're not a prodigy, it's not worth your time because you'll never be any good.
I read that into it also. It strips everyone into stars and job-occupiers. But I think it leaves out another really important subset of people who can identify those of their peers who are prodigies, and absorb their thought train and problem solving patterns through osmosis. If you're sitting next to the smartest guys in the room, and you have the right mix of social skills and an appreciation of process, you're bound to have it rub off on you.
I don't think you need to start programming at a young age to become an excellent programmer. The biggest issue I've seen is that people have a hard time understanding the hard and fast rules of logic and other people just get it. I know people that have programmed since they were 8 that still have problems programming even simpler projects but they enjoy the challenge and can solve problems that they have (such as doing VBA scripts in Excel).
There was a fellow student in one of my classes who wanted to become better so badly that he would always ask some of us who were stronger at programming for advice and tips and he would follow each one. He had been programming since he was 7 and his dad was a software engineer. This guy at the end of college was a mediocre programmer at best and not for a lack of trying, he simply had issues changing his thought process to fit that of programming. It was really sad watching him fail after trying so hard. So far has he been through multiple tech jobs/programming positions and it seems he is really down on his luck.
I don't think any of the criteria mentioned really makes much of a difference. Just because I pick up a new language and play around with it doesn't mean that I am an good programmer. Just because I've been programming since I was 10 doesn't mean I am a good programmer. Yes, for some people that is the case, but not for most.