4 ms·

Something that bugs me about these articles is how the data is gathered: "In the recruiting work I have done I've asked thousands of programmers to explain the

Something that bugs me about these articles is how the data is gathered: "In the recruiting work I have done I've asked thousands of programmers to explain the concept behind design patterns" I'd have to find some data to back up what I suspect, which is that the bottom X% of programmers (or at least would-be programmers) cycle through all those job interviews where this lack of knowledge becomes apparent (unless you're recruiting for a really high-level position where the top programmers might be interested in applying, and even then many are already content where they are). So, if you're any good, you're not as likely to be interviewed, and so the population is flawed. That doesn't mean that design patterns have or have not flopped. At least, every one of my coworkers have been taught the patterns. Whether we apply them or not might merit a study, one with a methodology that doesn't mislead the observer and where a more valid conclusion might be reached (it could even be the same conclusion, that is, that they have flopped).

andrewstuart 16y ago
Are you suggesting that great programmers tend not to have to go through the normal job seeking process, being interviewed etc, and therefore it tends to be the less competent programmers who end up having to go through interviews, and that these lower skilled programmers don't know design patterns?
- philwelch 16y ago
  The great programmers certainly go through fewer interviews, since they tend to get hired quicker. And then they have a job, so they don't do interviews anymore. It's the incompetent programmers who are more likely to show up because they're more likely to (a) be unemployed and (b) go through more interviews before finding a job.
  - darwinGod 16y ago
    Really?? That's some strong opinion, which I disagree with.
    - loumf 16y ago
      This old Joel Spolsky article gives an argument to why that is: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FindingGreatDevelopers.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FindingGreatDeveloper... If you believe that good programmers are more likely to be offered a job than bad ones, it pretty much flows from that that bad programmers will be interviewing more. If that's so, then you are more likely to interview bad programmers. Statistically, on average, etc. Not in every case.
      - andrewstuart 16y ago
        Perhaps true that some good and great programmers get snapped up by people who know them and never need to look at a job board. It's not true in general however that good and great programmers don't have to go through the normal channels to find jobs. I encounter many extremely talented programmers who weren't just snapped up by their network of colleagues.
        philwelch 16y ago
        Even assuming great programmers do look at job boards and go through normal channels, they're more likely to get hired and stay employed, which still makes the numbers game work out like I described.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      It would be more interesting to hear why you disagree. It seems fairly straightforward to me, though I probably appropriated the argument from Joel Spolsky as loumf points out.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Quite so, it should be intuitively obvious that this is the case.
- loumf 16y ago
  Great programmers tend to have built up a network of people that would like to hire them or will recommend them.

andrewstuart 16y ago

Are you suggesting that great programmers tend not to have to go through the normal job seeking process, being interviewed etc, and therefore it tends to be the less competent programmers who end up having to go through interviews, and that these lower skilled programmers don't know design patterns?

philwelch 16y ago
The great programmers certainly go through fewer interviews, since they tend to get hired quicker. And then they have a job, so they don't do interviews anymore. It's the incompetent programmers who are more likely to show up because they're more likely to (a) be unemployed and (b) go through more interviews before finding a job.
- darwinGod 16y ago
  Really?? That's some strong opinion, which I disagree with.
  - loumf 16y ago
    This old Joel Spolsky article gives an argument to why that is: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FindingGreatDevelopers.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FindingGreatDeveloper... If you believe that good programmers are more likely to be offered a job than bad ones, it pretty much flows from that that bad programmers will be interviewing more. If that's so, then you are more likely to interview bad programmers. Statistically, on average, etc. Not in every case.
    - andrewstuart 16y ago
      Perhaps true that some good and great programmers get snapped up by people who know them and never need to look at a job board. It's not true in general however that good and great programmers don't have to go through the normal channels to find jobs. I encounter many extremely talented programmers who weren't just snapped up by their network of colleagues.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        Even assuming great programmers do look at job boards and go through normal channels, they're more likely to get hired and stay employed, which still makes the numbers game work out like I described.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    It would be more interesting to hear why you disagree. It seems fairly straightforward to me, though I probably appropriated the argument from Joel Spolsky as loumf points out.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Quite so, it should be intuitively obvious that this is the case.
loumf 16y ago
Great programmers tend to have built up a network of people that would like to hire them or will recommend them.