4 ms·

This matrix is a bunch of crap. The ability to "get things done" is the most important factor of programmer competency. Every thing else is incidental.

strlen 17y ago
Not true. Getting "things done" while creating an O(N^2) solution, in spaghetti code, to a problem that's already well solved by an external library is horrible.
- va_coder 17y ago
  Using your argument: Mcdonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, Coke and many other companies are O(N^2) solutions and therefore failures. They repackaged an existing idea, made slight modifications, and sold it for lots of money. I hate seeing wasted money and stupid solutions succeed like the next guy and maybe we're talking about different things. But whether things got done should be decided by the customer not your TDD fanatic coworker.
- dasil003 17y ago
  I tentatively agree because these things can be showstoppers, but it really depends. I've seen PhDs who can't tie their shoes. Theoretical knowledge is useless in production software if you don't know how to apply it, and yet without it you will be greatly limited in the scope of systems you can build.
- puneetht 17y ago
  Of course an elegant solution is desirable, however I prefer bloatware that works, over a beautifully architected one that is vaporware.
  - bhousel 17y ago
    I used to believe that too, but I've changed my mind. Now, I'll always prefer clean organized code, even if it doesn't work. I can always hire someone or jump in myself and make the changes that are necessary. It is safer to assume that all code is broken in some way. E.g. If someone says that code "works", what they usually mean is that the software is broken in ways that they doesn't understand. When someone says a system is "secure", it means that it contains vulnerabilities that they haven't yet discovered. A pessimistic attitude, but it has served me well.
  - strlen 17y ago
    Sometimes a decision can be made to accrue technical debt or to keep paying the interest on the acquired "technical debt rather than the principal. However, the decision has to be made by someone who understands what an elegant solution would look like (if time or budget restrains aren't there). That's why you need somebody who is both smart (can see the elegant solution) and gets thing done (will ship a minimally acceptable solution and re-factor when needed).
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
hello_moto 17y ago
Good idea. I'd like to be your manager. I want every thing done in the range of 2-4 hours. More than that I'll fire you.
- puneetht 17y ago
  You sound just like my old pointy haired boss. I'll do with you, what I did with him. I'm going to roll my eyes and call you names when you talk to me, because I know you're too dumb to do my job and smart enough to know that.

strlen 17y ago

Not true. Getting "things done" while creating an O(N^2) solution, in spaghetti code, to a problem that's already well solved by an external library is horrible.

va_coder 17y ago
Using your argument: Mcdonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, Coke and many other companies are O(N^2) solutions and therefore failures. They repackaged an existing idea, made slight modifications, and sold it for lots of money. I hate seeing wasted money and stupid solutions succeed like the next guy and maybe we're talking about different things. But whether things got done should be decided by the customer not your TDD fanatic coworker.
dasil003 17y ago
I tentatively agree because these things can be showstoppers, but it really depends. I've seen PhDs who can't tie their shoes. Theoretical knowledge is useless in production software if you don't know how to apply it, and yet without it you will be greatly limited in the scope of systems you can build.
puneetht 17y ago
Of course an elegant solution is desirable, however I prefer bloatware that works, over a beautifully architected one that is vaporware.
- bhousel 17y ago
  I used to believe that too, but I've changed my mind. Now, I'll always prefer clean organized code, even if it doesn't work. I can always hire someone or jump in myself and make the changes that are necessary. It is safer to assume that all code is broken in some way. E.g. If someone says that code "works", what they usually mean is that the software is broken in ways that they doesn't understand. When someone says a system is "secure", it means that it contains vulnerabilities that they haven't yet discovered. A pessimistic attitude, but it has served me well.
- strlen 17y ago
  Sometimes a decision can be made to accrue technical debt or to keep paying the interest on the acquired "technical debt rather than the principal. However, the decision has to be made by someone who understands what an elegant solution would look like (if time or budget restrains aren't there). That's why you need somebody who is both smart (can see the elegant solution) and gets thing done (will ship a minimally acceptable solution and re-factor when needed).

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

hello_moto 17y ago

Good idea. I'd like to be your manager. I want every thing done in the range of 2-4 hours. More than that I'll fire you.

puneetht 17y ago
You sound just like my old pointy haired boss. I'll do with you, what I did with him. I'm going to roll my eyes and call you names when you talk to me, because I know you're too dumb to do my job and smart enough to know that.