4 ms·

That's not his point. No one expects a chemical engineering 1st year student to have mastered organic chemistry already. Just as no one expects a 1st year mech

That's not his point. No one expects a chemical engineering 1st year student to have mastered organic chemistry already. Just as no one expects a 1st year mechanical engineering student to thoroughly understand rigid body dynamics at age 10. Yea maybe they built an RC plane or did some home experiments, but if anyone is doing these things at a young age they are clearly far above their peers. > Andrew Wiles Example here-this man is extremely intelligent, it's like using Einstein as an example that anyone can be a genius physicist that changes the world. No, they can't. We need to just call it what it is: arrogance and gating. "If you didn't do what I did, you must certainly not be any good." Which is an absolute shame

ghaff 9y ago
Quite a few comments on this thread should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand some of the cultural "shortcomings" of the software industry generally and the software industry in Silicon Valley specifically. This idea that not having had an all-consuming for programming since childhood and not maintaining an active Github account for all your side projects means that we don't want your kind is toxic.
- jasode 9y ago
  >This idea that not having had an all-consuming for programming since childhood and not maintaining an active Github account for all your side projects means that we don't want your kind is toxic. Then you are not aware of the toxic comments from your peers who agree with you. To recap... Group 1: programming-is-just-a-job -- the majority -- The programmers who want to compartmentalize their programming strictly to 40-hours work week so they can have a life outside of computers. Programming is just a means to an end. Programming is just the paycheck that feeds my family. Great! There's nothing wrong with you! You outnumber the programmers who view it as an artistic endeavor and self-actualization. Group 2: programming-is-my-vocation -- the minority -- The programmers who got into as kids and find joy in side projects after hours & the weekends. It's not enough for these 2 groups to peacefully coexist. It's also not enough that Group 1 outnumbers Group 2. It's also not enough that most cog-in-wheel corporate programming jobs don't even value Group 2's enthusiasm for programming. No, Group 1 is not satisfied with the above advantages. Group 1 is very annoyed if Group 2 programmers prefer working with other Group 2 programmers. G1 derides G2 as psychologically defective or unbalanced. E.g see HN poster (gyardley)[1] describing them as an "obsessive wretch" and "not an asset". Toxic indeed. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973898
  - dcole2929 9y ago
    You are way off base here. The issue here that group 2 by it's very nature, being passionate, is way more vocal and outspoken about the issue than your group 1 people. It's not a problem that group 2 people want to work with other group 2 people so far in that it doesn't affect group 1 people but that's not how it works. Your group 1 people generally don't care who they work with so long as they can do the job. The problem is that by being far more vocal they affect things like hiring, and who gets promoted which does negatively affect group 1 people. Regardless of the size of the two groups you have described if one is making it harder to advance for the others while not being provably better you're going to have a problem. And that is why you see a lot of people arguing against this mindset, because it IS toxic, and creates a situation wherein only people who have demonstrable interest in programming outside of work can succeed and advance. Also This mindset eventually can backfire on even your group 2 people because life happens and just because you have the free time, energy and motivation today to work on projects outside of work doesn't mean you will later when you have a family or health issues or any of the myriad other things that can come up.
    - jasode 9y ago
      >Your group 1 people generally don't care who they work with so long as they can do the job. The problem is that by [group 2] being far more vocal they affect things like hiring, and who gets promoted which does negatively affect group 1 people. Well, G2 people have an affinity for other G2 people. That's human nature! That's not toxic. Look at the various reasons given by G2 posters in this thread: they enjoy a work environment with other G2 people. Just as one can prefer having a comfortable chair or closed office, a G2 can state honestly that they would be happier with other G2 colleagues. Just because that has an effect of G1 not getting hired does not mean it's toxic. The analogy I like to use is a music band. If they're looking for a guitarist who's passionate about his instrument and music, the guitarist-just-a-job who has apathy about the music will not get invited to join the band. Maybe the apathetic guitarist can technically strum a C chord as well as the passionate guitarist. That's not enough. The band having a preference for the passionate guitarist is not being toxic. Yes, for many G2 programmers who started as kids... programming/playing with the computer is a very similar intellectual high to a teenager exploring a guitar. Programming feels like fun artistic expression and not "work" or a "job". I think many G1 programmers really don't understand that. If they could view G2 programmers as band musicians, maybe they would have more empathy for the passionate programmers having a preference for like-minded people.
jasode 9y ago
>No one expects a chemical engineering 1st year student to have mastered Neither ghaff nor I wrote anything about kids "mastering" the STEM topics before college or the first job. Therefore, that higher standard stated by you is a strawman. I thought ghaff was talking about STEM side projects which is certainly something within the abilities of teenagers without mastery of programming. That's what my reply to him/her was about and how "playing with science" is not unique to programming.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  Thank you for illustrating my point. No one would be expected to do meet those high standards, as you say. No one would be expected to be experts in basic chemistry by their first year of college. Yet in this very post, there are countless examples of people saying the best programmers were the ones that knew it all before college, who didn't need college, who put in the time to learn before college, etc. No other field is this expected. That's the point. Playing with science and doing small little cute fun experiments is a lot different than me teaching myself productive front end development at age 16. I don't expect other 16 year olds overall to do as I did. Nor do I judge people if they didn't.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >in this very post, there are countless examples of people saying the best programmers were the ones that knew it all before college, Nobody in this thread has said that programmers should "know it all" before college. You're injecting conditions and standards (like "mastery") that no poster actually wrote. >No other field is this expected. That's the point. This isn't true. You can see coaching advice for electrical engineers to update their resume with any DIY (do-it-yourself) electronics projects that would demonstrate self-motivation, passion, etc to potential employers. In that respect, it's not much different than computer programming. Do electrical engineers get jobs without any personal side projects?!? Yes, of course. Same as computer science -- many programmers get jobs without side projects. In both scenarios, it isn't absolutely necessary but it's a way to stand out from the crowd.

ghaff 9y ago

Quite a few comments on this thread should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand some of the cultural "shortcomings" of the software industry generally and the software industry in Silicon Valley specifically. This idea that not having had an all-consuming for programming since childhood and not maintaining an active Github account for all your side projects means that we don't want your kind is toxic.

jasode 9y ago
>This idea that not having had an all-consuming for programming since childhood and not maintaining an active Github account for all your side projects means that we don't want your kind is toxic. Then you are not aware of the toxic comments from your peers who agree with you. To recap... Group 1: programming-is-just-a-job -- the majority -- The programmers who want to compartmentalize their programming strictly to 40-hours work week so they can have a life outside of computers. Programming is just a means to an end. Programming is just the paycheck that feeds my family. Great! There's nothing wrong with you! You outnumber the programmers who view it as an artistic endeavor and self-actualization. Group 2: programming-is-my-vocation -- the minority -- The programmers who got into as kids and find joy in side projects after hours & the weekends. It's not enough for these 2 groups to peacefully coexist. It's also not enough that Group 1 outnumbers Group 2. It's also not enough that most cog-in-wheel corporate programming jobs don't even value Group 2's enthusiasm for programming. No, Group 1 is not satisfied with the above advantages. Group 1 is very annoyed if Group 2 programmers prefer working with other Group 2 programmers. G1 derides G2 as psychologically defective or unbalanced. E.g see HN poster (gyardley)[1] describing them as an "obsessive wretch" and "not an asset". Toxic indeed. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973898
- dcole2929 9y ago
  You are way off base here. The issue here that group 2 by it's very nature, being passionate, is way more vocal and outspoken about the issue than your group 1 people. It's not a problem that group 2 people want to work with other group 2 people so far in that it doesn't affect group 1 people but that's not how it works. Your group 1 people generally don't care who they work with so long as they can do the job. The problem is that by being far more vocal they affect things like hiring, and who gets promoted which does negatively affect group 1 people. Regardless of the size of the two groups you have described if one is making it harder to advance for the others while not being provably better you're going to have a problem. And that is why you see a lot of people arguing against this mindset, because it IS toxic, and creates a situation wherein only people who have demonstrable interest in programming outside of work can succeed and advance. Also This mindset eventually can backfire on even your group 2 people because life happens and just because you have the free time, energy and motivation today to work on projects outside of work doesn't mean you will later when you have a family or health issues or any of the myriad other things that can come up.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >Your group 1 people generally don't care who they work with so long as they can do the job. The problem is that by [group 2] being far more vocal they affect things like hiring, and who gets promoted which does negatively affect group 1 people. Well, G2 people have an affinity for other G2 people. That's human nature! That's not toxic. Look at the various reasons given by G2 posters in this thread: they enjoy a work environment with other G2 people. Just as one can prefer having a comfortable chair or closed office, a G2 can state honestly that they would be happier with other G2 colleagues. Just because that has an effect of G1 not getting hired does not mean it's toxic. The analogy I like to use is a music band. If they're looking for a guitarist who's passionate about his instrument and music, the guitarist-just-a-job who has apathy about the music will not get invited to join the band. Maybe the apathetic guitarist can technically strum a C chord as well as the passionate guitarist. That's not enough. The band having a preference for the passionate guitarist is not being toxic. Yes, for many G2 programmers who started as kids... programming/playing with the computer is a very similar intellectual high to a teenager exploring a guitar. Programming feels like fun artistic expression and not "work" or a "job". I think many G1 programmers really don't understand that. If they could view G2 programmers as band musicians, maybe they would have more empathy for the passionate programmers having a preference for like-minded people.

jasode 9y ago

>No one expects a chemical engineering 1st year student to have mastered Neither ghaff nor I wrote anything about kids "mastering" the STEM topics before college or the first job. Therefore, that higher standard stated by you is a strawman. I thought ghaff was talking about STEM side projects which is certainly something within the abilities of teenagers without mastery of programming. That's what my reply to him/her was about and how "playing with science" is not unique to programming.

ntsplnkv2 9y ago
Thank you for illustrating my point. No one would be expected to do meet those high standards, as you say. No one would be expected to be experts in basic chemistry by their first year of college. Yet in this very post, there are countless examples of people saying the best programmers were the ones that knew it all before college, who didn't need college, who put in the time to learn before college, etc. No other field is this expected. That's the point. Playing with science and doing small little cute fun experiments is a lot different than me teaching myself productive front end development at age 16. I don't expect other 16 year olds overall to do as I did. Nor do I judge people if they didn't.
- jasode 9y ago
  >in this very post, there are countless examples of people saying the best programmers were the ones that knew it all before college, Nobody in this thread has said that programmers should "know it all" before college. You're injecting conditions and standards (like "mastery") that no poster actually wrote. >No other field is this expected. That's the point. This isn't true. You can see coaching advice for electrical engineers to update their resume with any DIY (do-it-yourself) electronics projects that would demonstrate self-motivation, passion, etc to potential employers. In that respect, it's not much different than computer programming. Do electrical engineers get jobs without any personal side projects?!? Yes, of course. Same as computer science -- many programmers get jobs without side projects. In both scenarios, it isn't absolutely necessary but it's a way to stand out from the crowd.