4 ms·

Because if there is any training that stays relevant forever it is old college software engineering courses ...

by javanix 16y ago

ColinDabritz 16y ago
I agree that recalled college classes aren't the sturdiest reference. Here is a better cited source: "Frequently Forgotten Fundamental Facts about Software Engineering" by Robert L. Glass at the IEEE Computer Society website: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/buildyourcareer/fa035 http://www.computer.org/portal/web/buildyourcareer/fa035 "P2. Good programmers are up to 30 times better than mediocre programmers, according to "individual differences" research. Given that their pay is never commensurate, they are the biggest bargains in the software field." He also has a wonderful published book, "Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering" I believe the number there is "28 times" as mentioned on Jeff Atwoods blog: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/revisiting-the-facts-and-fallacies-of-software-engineering.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/revisiting-the-fact... "2. The best programmers are up to 28 times better than the worst programmers." I believe the source studies are cited in the book. I would add that the book is a great and thought provoking discussion of exactly this sort of 'old wives tale' about software engineering. Edit: I found the page with citations on google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=3Ntz-UJzZN0C&lpg=PA14&dq=facts%20and%20fallacies%20of%20software%20engineering%20robert%20glass%2028%20times&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=3Ntz-UJzZN0C&lpg=PA14&#...
- btilly 16y ago
  There were a number of problems with the quality of the individual differences research. I would not trust that particular number. Another frequently cited source that was methodologically much better is the fact that 10 to 1 productivity differences are common even across small groups of programmers. Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister performed this research and cited it in Peopleware. The two illuminating facts they also discovered at the same time were that the best predictor of programmer performance was the performance of other programmers at the same company, and that much of the productivity difference could be accounted for from differences in environment. (Sufficient office space, quiet office space, low interruption rates, etc.) I would trust that number a lot more. And I would strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in it read Peopleware to get some ideas about how they can improve productivity.

Because if there is any training that stays relevant forever it is old college software engineering courses ...

by javanix 16y ago

Because if there is any training that stays relevant forever it is old college software engineering courses ...

I agree that recalled college classes aren't the sturdiest reference. Here is a better cited source: "Frequently Forgotten Fundamental Facts about Software Engineering" by Robert L. Glass at the IEEE Computer Society website: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/buildyourcareer/fa035 http://www.computer.org/portal/web/buildyourcareer/fa035 "P2. Good programmers are up to 30 times better than mediocre programmers, according to "individual differences" research. Given that their pay is never commensurate, they are the biggest bargains in the software field." He also has a wonderful published book, "Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering" I believe the number there is "28 times" as mentioned on Jeff Atwoods blog: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/revisiting-the-facts-and-fallacies-of-software-engineering.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/revisiting-the-fact... "2. The best programmers are up to 28 times better than the worst programmers." I believe the source studies are cited in the book. I would add that the book is a great and thought provoking discussion of exactly this sort of 'old wives tale' about software engineering. Edit: I found the page with citations on google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=3Ntz-UJzZN0C&lpg=PA14&dq=facts%20and%20fallacies%20of%20software%20engineering%20robert%20glass%2028%20times&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=3Ntz-UJzZN0C&lpg=PA14&#...

btilly 16y ago
There were a number of problems with the quality of the individual differences research. I would not trust that particular number. Another frequently cited source that was methodologically much better is the fact that 10 to 1 productivity differences are common even across small groups of programmers. Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister performed this research and cited it in Peopleware. The two illuminating facts they also discovered at the same time were that the best predictor of programmer performance was the performance of other programmers at the same company, and that much of the productivity difference could be accounted for from differences in environment. (Sufficient office space, quiet office space, low interruption rates, etc.) I would trust that number a lot more. And I would strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in it read Peopleware to get some ideas about how they can improve productivity.