9 ms·

> > The truth is that programming isn't a passion or a talent, it is just a bunch of skills that can be learned. This may be true if your definition of program

> > The truth is that programming isn't a passion or a talent, it is just a bunch of skills that can be learned. This may be true if your definition of programming is the literal act of writing code / recalling syntax, and learning new tools. Of course, that's not really what programming is. That's the easy part. Programming is about problem solving, code is simply the tool. Critical thinking/problem solving ability, the ability to think in abstractions, the ability to hold a large amount of information in your head all at once, etc. are all skills, and not skills that the majority of people are particularly good at. We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw, or a EE on their ability to use a scope. I never understood why so many put so much emphasis on the tools a software dev knows.

sophacles 9y ago
I put emphasis on tools because I've worked with a lot of recent graduates. There's the very real, practical problem of knowing what not to solve. I don't care if you're a genius or not, you're wasting time recreating (poorly) components that already exist in the standard library. Similarly if someone is doing blatantly bad-practice things because "its just implementation details" (stuff like hardcoded paths to /home/username) it causes a bunch of extra effort to clean up the monstrosity. That's not to say problem solving is not extremely important, but the time suck created by bad tool use (or not using tools out of ignorance of their existence) ultimately reduces the productivity of a programmer, or in some cases, whole teams.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > Similarly if someone is doing blatantly bad-practice things because "its just implementation details" (stuff like hardcoded paths to /home/username) it causes a bunch of extra effort to clean up the monstrosity. Agreed. There's definitely a balance point there - I remember when I got to the point that I not only recognized that this a bad idea, but where they actively started bothering me even for one-off scripts. Something as simple as setting them as constants at the top of the script makes that feeling mostly go away and requires almost no extra effort when implementing. There are many times when I think "This is really brittle. Surely there's a better way to do it...", which is usually quickly followed by "I'll figure out that better way later, for now, just isolate it and make a note to fix it when this is done."
Pigo 9y ago
I do believe these skills can be learned, but it's the enjoyment I derive from these things that I believe is the difference between some people and I. When I was in junior high I would do various logic problems for fun. I asked for nothing but a TI-85 for my birthday one year. There probably are people who are better than me at coding who hate the work. But I've hated every job I had until someone started paying me to sit, put on headphones, and solve problems with code. I go home with a sense of satisfaction, whether it's a skill, talent, passion is interesting but doesn't matter to me really.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  > I do believe these skills can be learned, Ex teacher here: Some people really really seems to have a harder time with certain subjects than others. I took pride in being a good teacher but I have experienced one person who - despite being normal and being able to keep a normal job - just couldn't grasp the basics of computers. And by basics I mean: Connect power cable, press power button, wait for Windows to load, type password and open Internet explorer. It would stop somewhere in between there each time. There is nothing wrong with that just like there is nothing wrong with me never being able to become a long haul truck driver (falls asleep), pilot (partially colour blind), or soccer star (hopeless). > but it's the enjoyment I derive from these things that I believe is the difference between some people and I. Thus is huge as well. Possibly also underappreciated.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  After (as an adult) watching kids develop, there is a huge positive feedback loop for various abilities. When you are slightly better or faster or just find doing it (whatever "it" is) more rewarding compared to your peers, then it takes lower effort to get the same reward. This means you are more likely to spend more time doing it. This means that after a while you have more practice than your peers, so the difference in ability is amplified. Now various grownups around you notice and complement you on it, get you lessons to do it better, provide you with supplies, &c. and the difference grows. By the time you are looking at teenagers, it's hard to tell how much of the difference stems from natural ability, and how much of it is this snowball effect.
- 9y ago
itamarst 9y ago
Critical thinking, logic, empathy, etc. are all skills one can learn. And that's the point.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  Eh, I'm not convinced of that. I don't think you can take any person and teach them to think through problems logically. It seems simple enough, and you can certainly make them _better_ at it, but I really do believe we all have upper limits on our potential.
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    Isn’t this basically what is used in behavioral therapy? Teaching people to think and approach emotional things reasonably?
  - sampleinajar 9y ago
    I agree that there are upper limits on a given individual's potential, but I think you are being too absolutist in language. I'm not sure that you can take ANY person and teach them any given thing. That's just silly. I think the powerful point is that there are and needs to be average programmers, and we can teach a subset of people to be that. There is evidence, even if anecdotally, that many are being dissuaded from the field due to a toxic belief that you are either born with some amazing ability to do the work and that it can't be taught, or you suck because you just "don't get it". Very damaging philosophy. I think we could teach certain people to do the work, maybe not everyone, but more than currently. There are a lot of mundane jobs in programming that do not need super high level abstraction and critical thinking skills.
    - EpicEng 9y ago
      > I think the powerful point is that there are and needs to be average programmers Of course we do, but no one is saying only the best should be hired and the rest should go dig a ditch. Most programming tasks do not require top level talent to accomplish, but when I'm hiring I'm going after the best candidate I can get, and that has little to do with e.g. what web framework they are most familiar with.
BurritoAlPastor 9y ago
Do you mean to say that being able to think in abstractions or keep a lot of state knowledge in short-term memory are skills that cannot be learned? So where did we acquire these skills, if not by learning?
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  They're built in, like most cognitive abilities. After all, you never learn how to take a 2 dimensional pattern of light hitting your retina and turn it into a 3 dimensional model of your environment. Ditto for locating the source of sounds. And, while you learn a specific language, none of us have to develop the general skill of learning a language from scratch as toddlers.
- anarchimedes 9y ago
  Paging Gwern? [1] [1] http://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ http://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ
- btilly 9y ago
  Your calling them "skills" prejudices the answer. My best understanding is that they aren't skills, they are hardwired abilities. My best guess based on research that I've seen on IQ is that about half of the hardwiring is genetic and half is a result of childhood upbringing, but by adulthood they are not readily changed. That said, we build concrete skills around how to make the best use of those abilities. We build memory skills to be able to quickly bring things out of short term memory back in. We build abstractions and concepts that allow us to efficiently analyze complex situations. We learn to think better with the capacity that we have. However our capacity doesn't seem to be readily changed. As a concrete anecdotal example, several who have taught CS for decades tell me that most students simply can't "get" pointer arithmetic or recursion. Their brains don't go that way no matter how much they try. People who do master it learn those things fairly quickly and then can move on. The specific abstractions can be taught, the ability to think through those types of abstractions seems innate. None of this minimizes the effort needed to become a good programmer even if we have the capacity. However the fact that most humans can't become programmers is why there is a job that typically pays 6 figures where many who are successful in it are self-taught with no more than a high school degree or GED.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
+1 Code is simply a tool. And dev tools are even further removed. Git is not problem solving. I'm certainly not going to belittle that skill. I have Git expert envy. However, hiring a problem solver for their experience with nearly irrelevant tools is comical. A red flag, but still comical.
- mkirklions 9y ago
  > However, hiring a problem solver for their experience with nearly irrelevant tools is comical How far down the rabbithole does this go? I have never programmed iOS, but I'm completely positive I could program for iOS. 10 years of occasional programming, from python, to school projects, to database development, to android apps, to full stack react-native development. I'm confident that I can build an iOS app. Programming and understanding how computers handle inputs are tools. But programming is more mindset than anything. The only benefits of knowing the specific language or framework would be skipping the 1 month of learning syntax. I'm a recreational programmer mostly, but at some point, you realize you can do full-stack and you realize that everything is possible with google and stack overflow.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Oops. Sorry. I was speaking about something like Git, not a particular language tool.
maxxxxx 9y ago
In my view programming is definitely a talent or just willingness to put up with things a lot of people wouldn't want to. When I explain to a lot of people in detail what I do during the day and the things I have to think about most people think this is a rather boring and tedious job they don't want to do. It's the same for a lot of jobs. Intellectually I can do what pure business people or lawyers but I don't find it interesting so I don't have passion for it and will never do well. On the other hand the first time I saw programming stuff I got excited immediately and had passion for it. I think that's my real talent.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
There are two meanings of learn that are at odds here. One is to be taught something, which I think many of us agree isn’t sufficient for programming. The other is to acquire the skill via lots of practice, which is much more appropriate in the context of programming. Ones ability to program is directly related to ones tenacity to practice programming.
galieos_ghost 9y ago
Saying there isn't talent involved in programming is like saying talent is involved in sports or guitar or painting. Sure anyone can improve but some people just have a natural aptitude. When I was an athlete in high school and college there were people who barely trained and ate whatever they wanted and were far better than people who worked their ass off and counted every calorie. Programming is much the same. I've had lots of people want me to help them learn, some people are naturals and will make more progress in a few days than most people do in weeks or months. I'm not sure why people get so defensive about it, nobody cares if you say someone short can't make it in the NBA, but say it about programming or some other mental endeavor people get upset.
Daycrawler 9y ago
/r/iamverysmart
mywittyname 9y ago
> We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job. The difference between me and a professional carpenter is literally the ability to use tools effectively to build an item. I know whether to use a dovetail or dowel joint as well as any professional, but I guarantee the pro will achieve a better finish in much less time. It's like theoretical CS vs. real-world programming. It's good to know sorting strategies and whatnot, but knowing how to use the tools is what gets stuff done.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job. The problem is that we don't pay engineers to crank out pre-designed classes in a specified language with a specific editor. We do pay day laborers to go dig a certain trench over there with these particular shovels and picks. Software engineering is so much more open-ended. We're paying people to "go help the team make the yard more water efficient". In other words, if we had more well-defined roles for "coder" versus "engineer" versus "architect", it might make sense to test on the ability to use tools, but in general people in this thread aren't making that kind of distinction because the tech culture in general doesn't make a clear distinction. Otherwise, we'd have "coder" job interviews that didn't include algorithms or open-ended problem solving questions.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  >We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job A rather trivially learned part of their job. It has little bearing on their ability to build a beautiful cabinet. >The difference between me and a professional carpenter is literally the ability to use tools effectively to build an item It's much more than that. How about Michelangelo? Do you think the only difference between you and him is that he's had more practice with a chisel? Doubtful. >It's like theoretical CS vs. real-world programming. It's good to know sorting strategies and whatnot, but knowing how to use the tools is what gets stuff done. This is the lone of thinking that leads hiring managers to build teams of mediocre devs with a lot of buzzwords in their CV. I don't care so much that you know e.g. C#, I care that you are a great problem solver. If you have that part down I'm fine with investing a little time into you so that you can learn C#, ASP.NET, whatever. The latter bit is easy.
dpweb 9y ago
Better also to not just grasp but live on concepts like opportunity cost and technical debt. You are Not adding value making the wrong choices in these areas, nevermind your ability to type code.
mabufo 9y ago
> We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw What? Yes we absolutely would.
- laythea 9y ago
  I think the point is that we don't judge on the tools, but the results. If he/she did a good job, why would you care? you wouldn't. Which is the parent's point. I think.
  - mabufo 9y ago
    If you can't use the basic tools, there are not going to BE any results. The metaphor is ridiculous.

sophacles 9y ago

I put emphasis on tools because I've worked with a lot of recent graduates. There's the very real, practical problem of knowing what not to solve. I don't care if you're a genius or not, you're wasting time recreating (poorly) components that already exist in the standard library. Similarly if someone is doing blatantly bad-practice things because "its just implementation details" (stuff like hardcoded paths to /home/username) it causes a bunch of extra effort to clean up the monstrosity. That's not to say problem solving is not extremely important, but the time suck created by bad tool use (or not using tools out of ignorance of their existence) ultimately reduces the productivity of a programmer, or in some cases, whole teams.

LyndsySimon 9y ago
> Similarly if someone is doing blatantly bad-practice things because "its just implementation details" (stuff like hardcoded paths to /home/username) it causes a bunch of extra effort to clean up the monstrosity. Agreed. There's definitely a balance point there - I remember when I got to the point that I not only recognized that this a bad idea, but where they actively started bothering me even for one-off scripts. Something as simple as setting them as constants at the top of the script makes that feeling mostly go away and requires almost no extra effort when implementing. There are many times when I think "This is really brittle. Surely there's a better way to do it...", which is usually quickly followed by "I'll figure out that better way later, for now, just isolate it and make a note to fix it when this is done."

Pigo 9y ago

I do believe these skills can be learned, but it's the enjoyment I derive from these things that I believe is the difference between some people and I. When I was in junior high I would do various logic problems for fun. I asked for nothing but a TI-85 for my birthday one year. There probably are people who are better than me at coding who hate the work. But I've hated every job I had until someone started paying me to sit, put on headphones, and solve problems with code. I go home with a sense of satisfaction, whether it's a skill, talent, passion is interesting but doesn't matter to me really.

reitanqild 9y ago
> I do believe these skills can be learned, Ex teacher here: Some people really really seems to have a harder time with certain subjects than others. I took pride in being a good teacher but I have experienced one person who - despite being normal and being able to keep a normal job - just couldn't grasp the basics of computers. And by basics I mean: Connect power cable, press power button, wait for Windows to load, type password and open Internet explorer. It would stop somewhere in between there each time. There is nothing wrong with that just like there is nothing wrong with me never being able to become a long haul truck driver (falls asleep), pilot (partially colour blind), or soccer star (hopeless). > but it's the enjoyment I derive from these things that I believe is the difference between some people and I. Thus is huge as well. Possibly also underappreciated.
aidenn0 9y ago
After (as an adult) watching kids develop, there is a huge positive feedback loop for various abilities. When you are slightly better or faster or just find doing it (whatever "it" is) more rewarding compared to your peers, then it takes lower effort to get the same reward. This means you are more likely to spend more time doing it. This means that after a while you have more practice than your peers, so the difference in ability is amplified. Now various grownups around you notice and complement you on it, get you lessons to do it better, provide you with supplies, &c. and the difference grows. By the time you are looking at teenagers, it's hard to tell how much of the difference stems from natural ability, and how much of it is this snowball effect.
9y ago

itamarst 9y ago

Critical thinking, logic, empathy, etc. are all skills one can learn. And that's the point.

EpicEng 9y ago
Eh, I'm not convinced of that. I don't think you can take any person and teach them to think through problems logically. It seems simple enough, and you can certainly make them _better_ at it, but I really do believe we all have upper limits on our potential.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  Isn’t this basically what is used in behavioral therapy? Teaching people to think and approach emotional things reasonably?
- sampleinajar 9y ago
  I agree that there are upper limits on a given individual's potential, but I think you are being too absolutist in language. I'm not sure that you can take ANY person and teach them any given thing. That's just silly. I think the powerful point is that there are and needs to be average programmers, and we can teach a subset of people to be that. There is evidence, even if anecdotally, that many are being dissuaded from the field due to a toxic belief that you are either born with some amazing ability to do the work and that it can't be taught, or you suck because you just "don't get it". Very damaging philosophy. I think we could teach certain people to do the work, maybe not everyone, but more than currently. There are a lot of mundane jobs in programming that do not need super high level abstraction and critical thinking skills.
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    > I think the powerful point is that there are and needs to be average programmers Of course we do, but no one is saying only the best should be hired and the rest should go dig a ditch. Most programming tasks do not require top level talent to accomplish, but when I'm hiring I'm going after the best candidate I can get, and that has little to do with e.g. what web framework they are most familiar with.

BurritoAlPastor 9y ago

Do you mean to say that being able to think in abstractions or keep a lot of state knowledge in short-term memory are skills that cannot be learned? So where did we acquire these skills, if not by learning?

toasterlovin 9y ago
They're built in, like most cognitive abilities. After all, you never learn how to take a 2 dimensional pattern of light hitting your retina and turn it into a 3 dimensional model of your environment. Ditto for locating the source of sounds. And, while you learn a specific language, none of us have to develop the general skill of learning a language from scratch as toddlers.
anarchimedes 9y ago
Paging Gwern? [1] [1] http://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ http://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ
btilly 9y ago
Your calling them "skills" prejudices the answer. My best understanding is that they aren't skills, they are hardwired abilities. My best guess based on research that I've seen on IQ is that about half of the hardwiring is genetic and half is a result of childhood upbringing, but by adulthood they are not readily changed. That said, we build concrete skills around how to make the best use of those abilities. We build memory skills to be able to quickly bring things out of short term memory back in. We build abstractions and concepts that allow us to efficiently analyze complex situations. We learn to think better with the capacity that we have. However our capacity doesn't seem to be readily changed. As a concrete anecdotal example, several who have taught CS for decades tell me that most students simply can't "get" pointer arithmetic or recursion. Their brains don't go that way no matter how much they try. People who do master it learn those things fairly quickly and then can move on. The specific abstractions can be taught, the ability to think through those types of abstractions seems innate. None of this minimizes the effort needed to become a good programmer even if we have the capacity. However the fact that most humans can't become programmers is why there is a job that typically pays 6 figures where many who are successful in it are self-taught with no more than a high school degree or GED.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

+1 Code is simply a tool. And dev tools are even further removed. Git is not problem solving. I'm certainly not going to belittle that skill. I have Git expert envy. However, hiring a problem solver for their experience with nearly irrelevant tools is comical. A red flag, but still comical.

mkirklions 9y ago
> However, hiring a problem solver for their experience with nearly irrelevant tools is comical How far down the rabbithole does this go? I have never programmed iOS, but I'm completely positive I could program for iOS. 10 years of occasional programming, from python, to school projects, to database development, to android apps, to full stack react-native development. I'm confident that I can build an iOS app. Programming and understanding how computers handle inputs are tools. But programming is more mindset than anything. The only benefits of knowing the specific language or framework would be skipping the 1 month of learning syntax. I'm a recreational programmer mostly, but at some point, you realize you can do full-stack and you realize that everything is possible with google and stack overflow.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Oops. Sorry. I was speaking about something like Git, not a particular language tool.

maxxxxx 9y ago

In my view programming is definitely a talent or just willingness to put up with things a lot of people wouldn't want to. When I explain to a lot of people in detail what I do during the day and the things I have to think about most people think this is a rather boring and tedious job they don't want to do. It's the same for a lot of jobs. Intellectually I can do what pure business people or lawyers but I don't find it interesting so I don't have passion for it and will never do well. On the other hand the first time I saw programming stuff I got excited immediately and had passion for it. I think that's my real talent.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

There are two meanings of learn that are at odds here. One is to be taught something, which I think many of us agree isn’t sufficient for programming. The other is to acquire the skill via lots of practice, which is much more appropriate in the context of programming. Ones ability to program is directly related to ones tenacity to practice programming.

galieos_ghost 9y ago

Saying there isn't talent involved in programming is like saying talent is involved in sports or guitar or painting. Sure anyone can improve but some people just have a natural aptitude. When I was an athlete in high school and college there were people who barely trained and ate whatever they wanted and were far better than people who worked their ass off and counted every calorie. Programming is much the same. I've had lots of people want me to help them learn, some people are naturals and will make more progress in a few days than most people do in weeks or months. I'm not sure why people get so defensive about it, nobody cares if you say someone short can't make it in the NBA, but say it about programming or some other mental endeavor people get upset.

Daycrawler 9y ago

/r/iamverysmart

mywittyname 9y ago

> We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job. The difference between me and a professional carpenter is literally the ability to use tools effectively to build an item. I know whether to use a dovetail or dowel joint as well as any professional, but I guarantee the pro will achieve a better finish in much less time. It's like theoretical CS vs. real-world programming. It's good to know sorting strategies and whatnot, but knowing how to use the tools is what gets stuff done.

humanrebar 9y ago
> We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job. The problem is that we don't pay engineers to crank out pre-designed classes in a specified language with a specific editor. We do pay day laborers to go dig a certain trench over there with these particular shovels and picks. Software engineering is so much more open-ended. We're paying people to "go help the team make the yard more water efficient". In other words, if we had more well-defined roles for "coder" versus "engineer" versus "architect", it might make sense to test on the ability to use tools, but in general people in this thread aren't making that kind of distinction because the tech culture in general doesn't make a clear distinction. Otherwise, we'd have "coder" job interviews that didn't include algorithms or open-ended problem solving questions.
EpicEng 9y ago
>We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job A rather trivially learned part of their job. It has little bearing on their ability to build a beautiful cabinet. >The difference between me and a professional carpenter is literally the ability to use tools effectively to build an item It's much more than that. How about Michelangelo? Do you think the only difference between you and him is that he's had more practice with a chisel? Doubtful. >It's like theoretical CS vs. real-world programming. It's good to know sorting strategies and whatnot, but knowing how to use the tools is what gets stuff done. This is the lone of thinking that leads hiring managers to build teams of mediocre devs with a lot of buzzwords in their CV. I don't care so much that you know e.g. C#, I care that you are a great problem solver. If you have that part down I'm fine with investing a little time into you so that you can learn C#, ASP.NET, whatever. The latter bit is easy.

dpweb 9y ago

Better also to not just grasp but live on concepts like opportunity cost and technical debt. You are Not adding value making the wrong choices in these areas, nevermind your ability to type code.

mabufo 9y ago

> We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw What? Yes we absolutely would.

laythea 9y ago
I think the point is that we don't judge on the tools, but the results. If he/she did a good job, why would you care? you wouldn't. Which is the parent's point. I think.
- mabufo 9y ago
  If you can't use the basic tools, there are not going to BE any results. The metaphor is ridiculous.