3 ms·
It's fundamental: You are a programmer if you...
- mynameishere 19y agoYou are a music composer if you...whistle aimlessly.
- run4yourlives 19y agoWell, if you whistle a tune you wrote, I suppose you are.
- mynameishere 19y agoAs I said, aimlessly.
- run4yourlives 19y agoYou also said compose. :-)
- Hexstream 19y agoThis post is inane at best, harmful at worst. It sounds like: "You know, mediocrity is not so bad."
- run4yourlives 19y agoAs opposed to the "You should program like this" posts? It makes perfect sense: Hackers and Painters, after all; you're an artist if you paint, even if the portrait sucks.
- dgabriel 19y agoContinuing the artist analogy, you are a poet if you write something everyone agrees is a poem. It doesn't mean you're automatically the poet laureate of anything, or even a not-terrible poet, but you have written a poem, and you can probably write more poems, therefore you are a poet. Similarly, you are a programmer if you can write computer programs. Even if the programs suck and you're a mindless hack, and nobody in their right mind would hire you.
- edw519 19y agofor (i=0;i<ManyTimes;i++) { div1.innerHTML += 'For the '+i+'th time, me <I>still</I> is the Chief Programmer of the USA<BR>' } If it runs, it must be true.
- cduan 19y agoMaybe we've got a false dichotomy on our hands? Rather than a binary programmer-not, we should think of a spectrum of programming ability. It's just a label after all; what really counts isn't what I call you, but what you can do.
- raganwald 19y agoThis is the point I was trying to make: that there are programmers who would be better if they applied the fundamentals. I though the foot-painting analogy would make that clear. But judging by the response, everyone thought I was presenting a dichotomy, which proves that although I am a writer of sorts, I am not a good writer.
- gills 19y agoI liked your post. It reminded me of "anyone can cook" in the movie Ratatouille.
- curi 19y agoI understood what you meant. Probably people who didn't understand were more motivated to reply, because they thought you'd said something crazy, instead of something good but not super-unusual. (Though I have to say, the common habit of forming negative interpretations of things one doesn't understand, is bad and inaccurate.)
- gensym 19y agoIn other words, debates about what makes one a good programmer are interesting and helpful. Questions about our responsibilities to the industry and society as a whole are worth discussing. Discussions of the meaning and value of a university degree and universities' responsibilities can be valuable, even if they're inflammatory. However, arguments about taxonomy are boring, a waste of time, and usually more rooted in snobbery than any desire to learn or teach about our chosen field, so let's all agree on this definition so we can go back to the more interesting discussions.
- raganwald 19y ago> usually more rooted in snobbery than any desire to learn or teach about our chosen field I defy anyone to start teaching programming by opening with the lines "You may think you're a programmer, but you aren't." It will probably go as far as writing a blog post that says "you may think you belong to an exclusive club, but you don't."
- tjr 19y agoHmmm. I think it's more about, do you do it habitually, consistently, etc. If I diagnosed myself with a cold, I wouldn't call myself a doctor. If I went around diagnosing other people with colds, or opened up an office where people could trundle in and let me diagnose them with a cold, then yes, I might consider myself a doctor... though a pathetic one. I started programming when I was 12. If I had just written a few programs at that time, and then stopped, and never did it again, then I don't think it would be fair to call myself a programmer. Since I have continued to write programs, and expect to do so for the foreseeable future, then -- even if I don't do it as well as you do -- I believe I am a programmer.