4 ms·

This comment completely ignores and perhaps even intentionally muddies the central thesis of my parent post, which was: there is a distinct and codified divide

by nmrm2 11y ago

This comment completely ignores and perhaps even intentionally muddies the central thesis of my parent post, which was: there is a distinct and codified divide between "grunt work you can do with minimal training" and "seriously difficult work" in other fields that does not exist in software. For instance, the sentence right after the one you quote ends with: "...or really extraordinary dedication". The handful of people you mention in your post, I think, count as extraordinary. To reiterate my point: The IT guy who helps hack out some spreadsheets isn't an actuary. The nurse who changes sheets isn't a doctor. But in software, there's no distinction -- in terms of externally recognized job titles -- between the guy hacking on wordpress templates or apps that burn my phone's battery and steal my data for no reason, and someone working on a piece of critical infrastructure. I can't really respond to your anecdata without starting a flame war, but suffice it to say that perhaps some people would consider PHP or Perl or JavaScript cogent counter-examples to the point you're trying to make. Finally, lots of actuaries without degrees rise to the top of their organizations and get to work on really cutting-edge stuff. Those people are extreme outliers. The same exact thing is true in software. Literally the only difference is that actuaries don't have the same sort of blindness to statistics that software people do, and I think the reason is that there's a clearer distinction between "grunt work related to actuarial work" and "professional-grade actuarial work". If we made that distinction in software, then I think the perception that you can do real software engineering without a degree would shift far closer to "Exceptional" than it is now.

icebraining 11y ago
I did mostly ignore the central thesis of your post, which is why I quoted the specific part I was replying to. You say they count as extraordinary, but by what measure? Reading the origins of those languages, they don't strike me as such. Unless you consider them extraordinary because they wrote languages and compilers without having advanced formal education, but then your claim seems rather circular. I can't really respond to your anecdata without starting a flame war, but suffice it to say that perhaps some people would consider PHP or Perl or JavaScript cogent counter-examples to the point you're trying to make. Well, no, because the point I'm making is that one can be employed to hack on some of the most used languages and compilers without having a PhD, and these examples strengthen it. Now, it might be that these languages are poorly built and which is why many non-PhDs can get jobs building them, but that is an explanation, not a rebuttal. And I'd point out that one doesn't have to be blind to fail to see statistics that aren't there. Would you care to provide them?
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > one can be employed to hack on some of the most used languages and compilers without having a PhD, and these examples strengthen it. Of course. You can most anything without a degree, with very few exceptions (see: the article). But the degreed : undegreed and phd : nonphd ratios in language design/compiler implementation are much higher than in software development more generally. The same is true of other technically challenging things. If you agree with that observation, then I think we're violently agreeing or you're reacting to the tone rather than the substance of my post. > Would you care to provide them? Anecdata, and bearing in mind that "originator of a language" is a very, very small subset of all people working on compilers / language design (and that even there, I think my observation holds -- especially for degreed : undegreed, and probably even for phd : nonphd). And that compiler/language design is only one very small segment of what a reasonable person would consider to be core infrastructure. I don't have the time or the interest to run this study. Feel free to do so.

by nmrm2 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

I did mostly ignore the central thesis of your post, which is why I quoted the specific part I was replying to. You say they count as extraordinary, but by what measure? Reading the origins of those languages, they don't strike me as such. Unless you consider them extraordinary because they wrote languages and compilers without having advanced formal education, but then your claim seems rather circular. I can't really respond to your anecdata without starting a flame war, but suffice it to say that perhaps some people would consider PHP or Perl or JavaScript cogent counter-examples to the point you're trying to make. Well, no, because the point I'm making is that one can be employed to hack on some of the most used languages and compilers without having a PhD, and these examples strengthen it. Now, it might be that these languages are poorly built and which is why many non-PhDs can get jobs building them, but that is an explanation, not a rebuttal. And I'd point out that one doesn't have to be blind to fail to see statistics that aren't there. Would you care to provide them?

nmrm2 11y ago
> one can be employed to hack on some of the most used languages and compilers without having a PhD, and these examples strengthen it. Of course. You can most anything without a degree, with very few exceptions (see: the article). But the degreed : undegreed and phd : nonphd ratios in language design/compiler implementation are much higher than in software development more generally. The same is true of other technically challenging things. If you agree with that observation, then I think we're violently agreeing or you're reacting to the tone rather than the substance of my post. > Would you care to provide them? Anecdata, and bearing in mind that "originator of a language" is a very, very small subset of all people working on compilers / language design (and that even there, I think my observation holds -- especially for degreed : undegreed, and probably even for phd : nonphd). And that compiler/language design is only one very small segment of what a reasonable person would consider to be core infrastructure. I don't have the time or the interest to run this study. Feel free to do so.