4 ms·

Frankly I hope that that regulation never happens. It sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me. The biggest reason I became a programmer, besides the fact that I

Frankly I hope that that regulation never happens. It sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me. The biggest reason I became a programmer, besides the fact that I really enjoy programming, is that there was no one to tell me I couldn't become one. Growing up I wanted to be all sorts of things only to find out there were entrenched gatekeepers and a multitude of of barriers to each profession. For whatever reason jumping through other people's hoops (even if their existence is totally justifiable) had no appeal to me. I shudder to think of a world where kids like me grow up and find out that programming has just as many licensing requirements and regulations as everything else they might want to be. Had that been the case I probably would have ended up just working a boring retail job or something.

ap22213 10y ago
But, on the other hand, companies are throwing away countless dollars on bad software. The problem is that it's relatively easy to write code to make something look somewhat functional, but it's a different level to complete it. The mistakes of the quick approaches take time to show, and then it becomes too late. It takes way more time and money to fix the issues, later. This has been a debate that's been going on for decades. There's the camp that wants software to get to the rigor of other engineering domains. But, there are a lot more who don't. Personally, I think we should be cautious. Software is such a subjective and broad field that it would be harmful to emulate the methods of other engineering domains. That said, I have seen a trend over the last decade of 'juniors' disregarding the wisdom and experience of 'seniors'. Maybe it's because we are too slow, too methodical, not well informed on what's new or recently hyped. Maybe we are more strict, more ambivalent (seeing everything as trade offs), or maybe we are just not fun. Who knows? But, it's incredibly frustrating to continuously fix poorly developed systems. It's irritating to give advice and guidance, only to have it disregarded because some celebrity consultant, blogger, or tweeter invented another silver bullet. Contrary to what some may think, it's really not fun to be able to say, 'I told you so.'. It just means that we have another mess to clean up. But, back to the topic at hand, when I hire a 'senior', I expect them to not require lots of guidance, make good decisions, not break anything, have a breadth of experience, be an awesome team players, be calm and tenacious, be able to pick up new things with ease, and have fundamental understanding of the whole stack, algorithms, and data structures.
- ovatsug25 10y ago
  Health care in the US blows through cash and often gets poorer results. Regulation does not a great industry make.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    I'm not a proponent of blind regulation, and actually, I prefer less regulation, generally. But, do you have evidence to back up your implicit claim that less regulation yields better results? I ask that with complete curiosity and humility - my perception is of experts telling me for decades that awesomeness is attainable with more deregulation. And, when awesome doesn't come, they say that it's because we didn't deregulate enough. Then, they ask for more. But, I truly want to know if my perceptions are off - i.e. changes could be happening slowly enough that I don't see the immediate results.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      There are scenarios in game theory (which I have not studied myself, only read about indirectly) that regularly occur in the market, that can only be solved by regulation enforced by a non-participant. Many of those scenarios relate to externalized costs (e.g. pollution) and information asymmetries.
  - hackits 10y ago
    You don't know how governments works then.
  - nemo 10y ago
    Health care in countries that have the best results are also heavily regulated. Regulations can be very beneficial, but only if they're well developed and well protected from regulatory capture.
    - hackits 10y ago
      Citation?
uola 10y ago
The alternative solution is what we have today when large tech companies prefer to hire people from high status schools.
- poikniok 10y ago
  And under an accreditation system they would not? I find that very hard to believe.
- careersuicide 10y ago
  Yeah, but part of my point, which I suppose I could have made more explicit, was that I don't have to work for a large tech company. Or any company at all. I can, if I really want to, strike out on my own and do it myself. That's how I got started getting paid to program. That path isn't for everyone, but I think that it's possible at all is a wonderful thing. I get a sinking feeling in my gut when I even contemplate a future where doing so just isn't a real option in the same way that one can't just become a doctor by obsessively practicing medicine on their own every night in their free time. I know I'm not the only one who got into programming that way and I think it would be really sad to close that avenue off for potential future programmers.
  - uola 10y ago
    I unfortunately think that the reason why programming has been accessible is because we didn't know better. The standard for what can be publicly accessible on the Internet or what will compete for users attention is much higher today. I think for programming to remain open there must be formal ways to acquire knowledge or knowing the quality of a piece of software.

ap22213 10y ago

But, on the other hand, companies are throwing away countless dollars on bad software. The problem is that it's relatively easy to write code to make something look somewhat functional, but it's a different level to complete it. The mistakes of the quick approaches take time to show, and then it becomes too late. It takes way more time and money to fix the issues, later. This has been a debate that's been going on for decades. There's the camp that wants software to get to the rigor of other engineering domains. But, there are a lot more who don't. Personally, I think we should be cautious. Software is such a subjective and broad field that it would be harmful to emulate the methods of other engineering domains. That said, I have seen a trend over the last decade of 'juniors' disregarding the wisdom and experience of 'seniors'. Maybe it's because we are too slow, too methodical, not well informed on what's new or recently hyped. Maybe we are more strict, more ambivalent (seeing everything as trade offs), or maybe we are just not fun. Who knows? But, it's incredibly frustrating to continuously fix poorly developed systems. It's irritating to give advice and guidance, only to have it disregarded because some celebrity consultant, blogger, or tweeter invented another silver bullet. Contrary to what some may think, it's really not fun to be able to say, 'I told you so.'. It just means that we have another mess to clean up. But, back to the topic at hand, when I hire a 'senior', I expect them to not require lots of guidance, make good decisions, not break anything, have a breadth of experience, be an awesome team players, be calm and tenacious, be able to pick up new things with ease, and have fundamental understanding of the whole stack, algorithms, and data structures.

ovatsug25 10y ago
Health care in the US blows through cash and often gets poorer results. Regulation does not a great industry make.
- ap22213 10y ago
  I'm not a proponent of blind regulation, and actually, I prefer less regulation, generally. But, do you have evidence to back up your implicit claim that less regulation yields better results? I ask that with complete curiosity and humility - my perception is of experts telling me for decades that awesomeness is attainable with more deregulation. And, when awesome doesn't come, they say that it's because we didn't deregulate enough. Then, they ask for more. But, I truly want to know if my perceptions are off - i.e. changes could be happening slowly enough that I don't see the immediate results.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    There are scenarios in game theory (which I have not studied myself, only read about indirectly) that regularly occur in the market, that can only be solved by regulation enforced by a non-participant. Many of those scenarios relate to externalized costs (e.g. pollution) and information asymmetries.
- hackits 10y ago
  You don't know how governments works then.
- nemo 10y ago
  Health care in countries that have the best results are also heavily regulated. Regulations can be very beneficial, but only if they're well developed and well protected from regulatory capture.
  - hackits 10y ago
    Citation?

uola 10y ago

The alternative solution is what we have today when large tech companies prefer to hire people from high status schools.

poikniok 10y ago
And under an accreditation system they would not? I find that very hard to believe.
careersuicide 10y ago
Yeah, but part of my point, which I suppose I could have made more explicit, was that I don't have to work for a large tech company. Or any company at all. I can, if I really want to, strike out on my own and do it myself. That's how I got started getting paid to program. That path isn't for everyone, but I think that it's possible at all is a wonderful thing. I get a sinking feeling in my gut when I even contemplate a future where doing so just isn't a real option in the same way that one can't just become a doctor by obsessively practicing medicine on their own every night in their free time. I know I'm not the only one who got into programming that way and I think it would be really sad to close that avenue off for potential future programmers.
- uola 10y ago
  I unfortunately think that the reason why programming has been accessible is because we didn't know better. The standard for what can be publicly accessible on the Internet or what will compete for users attention is much higher today. I think for programming to remain open there must be formal ways to acquire knowledge or knowing the quality of a piece of software.