2 ms·

> If you're doing "high level development" on a business app in C++ 11 then knowing assembly and having been through a bog-standard undergraduate CS Compiler De

> If you're doing "high level development" on a business app in C++ 11 then knowing assembly and having been through a bog-standard undergraduate CS Compiler Development course will actually help you use a whole bunch of things in the C++ standard library Agreed, and my understanding of assembly does help in those ways. I actually feel like compiler design was one of a very few classes in college that really, really taught me something. But if I'm hiring a Python or JavaScript developer, I'm not going to require they know assembly. If only because that would restrict the hiring pool so much that I'd likely never find an employee. A senior developer, though, probably should understand what's happening at the low level. And most teams should have a senior developer to keep the team from making rookie mistakes. There are plenty of programming jobs that can be done with less skill or deep knowledge. Like the ones that are discussed in the Wired article on coding being the next "blue collar" job. [1] [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/programming-is-the-new-blue-collar-job/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/programming-is-the-new-blue-co...

stcredzero 10y ago
Paraphrase: you have to compromise due to market realities. Isn't that an indictment of the poor state of training in our field?
- SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
  Yes and no. I think that the lead or "surgeon" (to quote The Mythical Man Month) in charge of any app or service development project should be well trained. Anyone who brings in a junior developer (anyone without a CS degree or equivalent, or less than 5 years of professional experience) to lead a project is asking for trouble. But I think that average developers don't need the full training any more than a nurse needs to have a full medical degree. There are certainly things that I don't want to have to do, and while I might be able to do them better in some way than a more junior developer, they just don't matter enough. It is a Catch-22, though: Just having a CS degree and five years of experience doesn't make a developer competent. I'd love to see some kind of certification to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so that non-experts could distinguish a top developer from a mid-tier developer. But none of the certifications I'm aware of do anything aside from test that you've memorized the right buzzwords associated with a particular technology, and as such having such a cert is almost useless. So yes, I'm arguing for certifications despite the fact that I view certifications as useless. If we had good certifications, maybe we could help establish a better way to distinguish developer skills. Would love to see that, but I admit it's selfishly motivated: I'm really good at programming and technical tests, so any such regimen I'd likely end up with the highest ratings, except if domain-specific knowledge was required.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    But I think that average developers don't need the full training any more than a nurse needs to have a full medical degree. A nurse needs to have enough 1st Principles knowledge plus specific training to keep from making egregious mistakes. In fact, where X is a profession, an X needs to have enough 1st Principles knowledge plus specific training to keep from making egregious mistakes. The fact that our "field" keeps producing X without that minimum level means something is broken. It would be like the nursing field producing nurses who didn't know how to spot a Tension Pneumothorax, because most nurses don't have to deal with that 99% of the time. So yes, I'm arguing for certifications despite the fact that I view certifications as useless. If we had good certifications, maybe we could help establish a better way to distinguish developer skills. The fact that you entertain this thought is an indication that something is not quite right with our field.
    - SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
      >The fact that you entertain this thought is an indication that something is not quite right with our field. Agreed. But try as I might, I can't come up with a solution that I'd actually support the implementation of. If you have any ideas about we can get from where we are to where we should be, I'd be interested in hearing them. Having IEEE license developers at varying levels of skill sounds like a start, and requiring Internet-visible software to be written by developers with certifications sounds nice...until you think about open source projects, which thrive in large part from free effort. And until you think about the fact that software traverses borders fluidly. And what about entrepreneurship? Should we tell people they can't write apps unless they have the certification? Or that they need to pay an expert to audit their apps? And the fact that big companies will do whatever they can to cut costs, including hiring developers in countries without certification requirements if you don't motivate them otherwise. (Maybe a DMCA-style safe-harbor, where ONLY if they use a development team with sufficient certifications can they be proof against lawsuits for defects; otherwise people can sue them for exploits that result from their software?) I have lots of ideas, as you can see above. I just don't like any of them. There probably needs to be a constellation of rules in place, set by a professional organization and ensconced as legal requirements... But half of the rules I imagine wanting I also, under other circumstances, would despise.

stcredzero 10y ago

Paraphrase: you have to compromise due to market realities. Isn't that an indictment of the poor state of training in our field?

SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
Yes and no. I think that the lead or "surgeon" (to quote The Mythical Man Month) in charge of any app or service development project should be well trained. Anyone who brings in a junior developer (anyone without a CS degree or equivalent, or less than 5 years of professional experience) to lead a project is asking for trouble. But I think that average developers don't need the full training any more than a nurse needs to have a full medical degree. There are certainly things that I don't want to have to do, and while I might be able to do them better in some way than a more junior developer, they just don't matter enough. It is a Catch-22, though: Just having a CS degree and five years of experience doesn't make a developer competent. I'd love to see some kind of certification to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so that non-experts could distinguish a top developer from a mid-tier developer. But none of the certifications I'm aware of do anything aside from test that you've memorized the right buzzwords associated with a particular technology, and as such having such a cert is almost useless. So yes, I'm arguing for certifications despite the fact that I view certifications as useless. If we had good certifications, maybe we could help establish a better way to distinguish developer skills. Would love to see that, but I admit it's selfishly motivated: I'm really good at programming and technical tests, so any such regimen I'd likely end up with the highest ratings, except if domain-specific knowledge was required.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  But I think that average developers don't need the full training any more than a nurse needs to have a full medical degree. A nurse needs to have enough 1st Principles knowledge plus specific training to keep from making egregious mistakes. In fact, where X is a profession, an X needs to have enough 1st Principles knowledge plus specific training to keep from making egregious mistakes. The fact that our "field" keeps producing X without that minimum level means something is broken. It would be like the nursing field producing nurses who didn't know how to spot a Tension Pneumothorax, because most nurses don't have to deal with that 99% of the time. So yes, I'm arguing for certifications despite the fact that I view certifications as useless. If we had good certifications, maybe we could help establish a better way to distinguish developer skills. The fact that you entertain this thought is an indication that something is not quite right with our field.
  - SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
    >The fact that you entertain this thought is an indication that something is not quite right with our field. Agreed. But try as I might, I can't come up with a solution that I'd actually support the implementation of. If you have any ideas about we can get from where we are to where we should be, I'd be interested in hearing them. Having IEEE license developers at varying levels of skill sounds like a start, and requiring Internet-visible software to be written by developers with certifications sounds nice...until you think about open source projects, which thrive in large part from free effort. And until you think about the fact that software traverses borders fluidly. And what about entrepreneurship? Should we tell people they can't write apps unless they have the certification? Or that they need to pay an expert to audit their apps? And the fact that big companies will do whatever they can to cut costs, including hiring developers in countries without certification requirements if you don't motivate them otherwise. (Maybe a DMCA-style safe-harbor, where ONLY if they use a development team with sufficient certifications can they be proof against lawsuits for defects; otherwise people can sue them for exploits that result from their software?) I have lots of ideas, as you can see above. I just don't like any of them. There probably needs to be a constellation of rules in place, set by a professional organization and ensconced as legal requirements... But half of the rules I imagine wanting I also, under other circumstances, would despise.