6 ms·

You'd call someone a bad programmer just because they can't write straight HTML? You'd call someone a bad programmer just because they've never dealt with data

You'd call someone a bad programmer just because they can't write straight HTML? You'd call someone a bad programmer just because they've never dealt with databases? Interesting.

rue 16y ago
With those actual examples, it would be highly unlikely for them to be good programmers.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  I know, personally, at least 3 exceptionally good programmers who can't write HTML and don't know what an inner-join is. They are gifted at system design and architecture, they write code that's clean, fast, understandable, and has very few bugs, and their code is delivered on time and to spec. But they've never written a web page, never bothered to look behind web pages, and don't know the syntax. I'm sure they'd be great if they chose to learn the syntax, grammar and elements, but they've no need. They certainly know about mathematical logic, and almost certainly know the concept of an inner-join, but they've never dealt with relational databases, and certainly not SQL. I'm pretty sure you can't be a good web developer without being about to write at least a little straight HTML, and without knowing the differences in use and performance of the different types of join, but even then I'm not convinced. Just speaking from my experience. It seems to me that sweeping generalisations such as "Can't write HTML => bad programmer" says more about the speaker than the subject.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    And they're web developers? I don't think you can read the OPs message in any way other than that it applies to web developers even before his edit.
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      No, they're not, and I didn't intend to imply they were. My comment was originally intended to point out that there are other types of programming than web programming, and that sweeping statements about people being bad programmers are misplaced when they're not properly qualified and contextualized. The "discussion" got out-of-hand, and it's too late to try to write something balanced and conciliatory.
  - rue 16y ago
    > Just speaking from my experience. It seems to me that sweeping generalisations such as "Can't write HTML => bad programmer" says more about the speaker than the subject. I will yield to your experience, and certainly do not suggest that it is impossible to be good without a grasp of the two technologies. My instinct, however, is that not knowing HTML (which I define as understanding the structure and basics, not complete mastery of XHTML 2 tags or something of the kind) shows an alarming lack of curiosity especially given how dominant web-based technologies have been in the last 6-7 years or so. Understanding databases and SQL (again, no mastery needed), on the other hand, seems like an exceptionally useful thing to have in your toolbox. How do you evaluate data storage options without having some working knowledge of databases? They are also both relatively cross-cutting for the field of software development, not specialised niches. Now, the guys and/or gals you know probably are great programmers: but I think a very small time investment in the two subjects would be quite beneficial. Edited for grammar and added 2nd last paragraph.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I know how to do the <i> and </i> tags, does that count as knowing basic HTML? Seriously, I think people might be showing a certain myopia in this thread, believing that the subfield that they're working on is all there is, or at least all that matters. If you want someone to write an iterative eigenvalue solver for a large sparse matrix in Fortran, I'm your guy... but my HTML is at the level of circa 1997 "Look at my awesome <blink>web page</blink>".
    - nickelplate 16y ago
      "My instinct, however, is that not knowing HTML (which I define as understanding the structure and basics, not complete mastery of XHTML 2 tags or something of the kind) shows an alarming lack of curiosity especially given how dominant web-based technologies have been in the last 6-7 years or so." The only thing it shows is a lack of interest in HTML. A lot of people take a problem-first approach to career development and will only learn a new technology if it helps them solve a particular class of problems. For all you know a programmer not interested in HTML could be dabbling in graphics or compiler writing in his spare time - domains where HTML or web technologies are not really needed.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  I spent the first 4 years of my career programming video games for the GBA and NDS. I knew basic HTML at that point, but I had barely ever worked with databases. I knew how to select something from a database but that's it (didn't know about joins, for example).
donaq 16y ago
Well, not HTML, but I would maintain that any programmer who hasn't dealt with databases is either a newbie or a bad programmer. Any web programmer who can't write straight HTML is most definitely a bad one.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  OK, so I'm either a newbie or a bad programmer. I've been programming since 1978, so I guess I'm a bad programmer. Hmm. I write safety-critical software for embedded processes and distributed systems. Perhaps I should be concerned at your judgement.
  - donaq 16y ago
    I think you have misread me. And while my knee-jerk reaction was to meet snark with snark, I shall resist the temptation. If none of your software has ever read from or written to a source of persistent data, I think you should be concerned. :)
    - kranner 16y ago
      Plain old files are perfectly valid sources and sinks for persistent data, if you don't need all the other features of a database.
      - philipkimmey 16y ago
        I interned this summer in a genetics lab, and was shocked the extent to which this is the case. Both the input and output files are absurdly huge, so I'm not sure anything else would've been viable, but still, at least as a student it always seemed like there should be "some other way." After a week or two of getting to know the system, for clarification I asked: "You mean this entire sophisticated system is just some Perl, with a database that keeps track of the flat files?"
        protomyth 16y ago
markkanof 16y ago
In the realm of web development (which the OP is), most developers have probably done at least some HTML and SQL. Sure there are folks who work at larger organizations where the SQL may be done by a different group than the web stuff, so maybe bad programmer is making too many assumptions. Maybe programmer with very limited scope.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- joezydeco 16y ago
  Lots of embedded programmers I know don't consider web development as "programming". Just sayin'.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Lots of people think the sun revolves around the Earth. Just sayin'.
    - X-Istence 16y ago
      It doesn't? This is news to me, do you have anymore information for me? I am in intrigued as that would change the entire model of the universe I have right now. </sarcasm> I've seen some web development in the past that was absolutely horrid, and I hope that after that project not a single programmer has to EVER touch code like that again.
      - pavel_lishin 16y ago
        > I've seen some web development in the past that was absolutely horrid What's your point?
        X-Istence 16y ago
        That web developers don't necessarily fall in the realm of software development/engineering. I should have finished that post, I just kinda left it hanging. Something else came into mind at the time and I mindlessly hit submit.
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
It's certainly possible to be a good programmer but to not have picked up HTML, but come on - making a simple web page is easy. A competent programmer should be able to pick it up quickly. (Note the "simple", though.)
- Tichy 16y ago
  Maybe they never felt the need to do it?
  - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
    Hence "pick up".
tel 16y ago
C'mon HN! This is DH3 at best. Don't let your egos get the better of your words. The obvious domain generalization is a much harder (but hardly impossible) statement to argue: Yes, there are people out there who couldn't <use basic building block of their field> if they had to, and have never heard of <some atomic concept they implicitly use every day>. We call them bad programmers. Guess what: they're everywhere. So the question becomes "if you only know how to function within some high level of abstraction are you effective at what you do?" I'd suggest that this holds pretty well if the level of abstraction you're using is too leaky. I don't have the slightest idea how to time an HD seek operation, but I can write to a file with a great deal of robustness. I think the op has a point though that if you operate mostly with RoR you might be ignorant to a non-trivial amount of detail which will relegate your work to being lower quality. My personal belief is that "web frameworks" aren't a sufficiently compartmentalized level of abstraction. RoR holds the opposite philosophy (evidenced by marketing and the opaqueness of Active Record, for instance) which causes a great deal of impedance when you have to dive into lower level concepts which were supposed to have vanished via RoR. So I agree with the op in that if you can only create things using RoR abstractions, you'll probably be in trouble before too long.

You'd call someone a bad programmer just because they can't write straight HTML? You'd call someone a bad programmer just because they've never dealt with databases? Interesting.

rue 16y ago

With those actual examples, it would be highly unlikely for them to be good programmers.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I know, personally, at least 3 exceptionally good programmers who can't write HTML and don't know what an inner-join is. They are gifted at system design and architecture, they write code that's clean, fast, understandable, and has very few bugs, and their code is delivered on time and to spec. But they've never written a web page, never bothered to look behind web pages, and don't know the syntax. I'm sure they'd be great if they chose to learn the syntax, grammar and elements, but they've no need. They certainly know about mathematical logic, and almost certainly know the concept of an inner-join, but they've never dealt with relational databases, and certainly not SQL. I'm pretty sure you can't be a good web developer without being about to write at least a little straight HTML, and without knowing the differences in use and performance of the different types of join, but even then I'm not convinced. Just speaking from my experience. It seems to me that sweeping generalisations such as "Can't write HTML => bad programmer" says more about the speaker than the subject.
- krschultz 16y ago
  And they're web developers? I don't think you can read the OPs message in any way other than that it applies to web developers even before his edit.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    No, they're not, and I didn't intend to imply they were. My comment was originally intended to point out that there are other types of programming than web programming, and that sweeping statements about people being bad programmers are misplaced when they're not properly qualified and contextualized. The "discussion" got out-of-hand, and it's too late to try to write something balanced and conciliatory.
- rue 16y ago
  > Just speaking from my experience. It seems to me that sweeping generalisations such as "Can't write HTML => bad programmer" says more about the speaker than the subject. I will yield to your experience, and certainly do not suggest that it is impossible to be good without a grasp of the two technologies. My instinct, however, is that not knowing HTML (which I define as understanding the structure and basics, not complete mastery of XHTML 2 tags or something of the kind) shows an alarming lack of curiosity especially given how dominant web-based technologies have been in the last 6-7 years or so. Understanding databases and SQL (again, no mastery needed), on the other hand, seems like an exceptionally useful thing to have in your toolbox. How do you evaluate data storage options without having some working knowledge of databases? They are also both relatively cross-cutting for the field of software development, not specialised niches. Now, the guys and/or gals you know probably are great programmers: but I think a very small time investment in the two subjects would be quite beneficial. Edited for grammar and added 2nd last paragraph.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I know how to do the <i> and </i> tags, does that count as knowing basic HTML? Seriously, I think people might be showing a certain myopia in this thread, believing that the subfield that they're working on is all there is, or at least all that matters. If you want someone to write an iterative eigenvalue solver for a large sparse matrix in Fortran, I'm your guy... but my HTML is at the level of circa 1997 "Look at my awesome <blink>web page</blink>".
  - nickelplate 16y ago
    "My instinct, however, is that not knowing HTML (which I define as understanding the structure and basics, not complete mastery of XHTML 2 tags or something of the kind) shows an alarming lack of curiosity especially given how dominant web-based technologies have been in the last 6-7 years or so." The only thing it shows is a lack of interest in HTML. A lot of people take a problem-first approach to career development and will only learn a new technology if it helps them solve a particular class of problems. For all you know a programmer not interested in HTML could be dabbling in graphics or compiler writing in his spare time - domains where HTML or web technologies are not really needed.
aplusbi 16y ago
I spent the first 4 years of my career programming video games for the GBA and NDS. I knew basic HTML at that point, but I had barely ever worked with databases. I knew how to select something from a database but that's it (didn't know about joins, for example).

donaq 16y ago

Well, not HTML, but I would maintain that any programmer who hasn't dealt with databases is either a newbie or a bad programmer. Any web programmer who can't write straight HTML is most definitely a bad one.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
OK, so I'm either a newbie or a bad programmer. I've been programming since 1978, so I guess I'm a bad programmer. Hmm. I write safety-critical software for embedded processes and distributed systems. Perhaps I should be concerned at your judgement.
- donaq 16y ago
  I think you have misread me. And while my knee-jerk reaction was to meet snark with snark, I shall resist the temptation. If none of your software has ever read from or written to a source of persistent data, I think you should be concerned. :)
  - kranner 16y ago
    Plain old files are perfectly valid sources and sinks for persistent data, if you don't need all the other features of a database.
    - philipkimmey 16y ago
      I interned this summer in a genetics lab, and was shocked the extent to which this is the case. Both the input and output files are absurdly huge, so I'm not sure anything else would've been viable, but still, at least as a student it always seemed like there should be "some other way." After a week or two of getting to know the system, for clarification I asked: "You mean this entire sophisticated system is just some Perl, with a database that keeps track of the flat files?"
      - protomyth 16y ago

markkanof 16y ago

In the realm of web development (which the OP is), most developers have probably done at least some HTML and SQL. Sure there are folks who work at larger organizations where the SQL may be done by a different group than the web stuff, so maybe bad programmer is making too many assumptions. Maybe programmer with very limited scope.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
joezydeco 16y ago
Lots of embedded programmers I know don't consider web development as "programming". Just sayin'.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Lots of people think the sun revolves around the Earth. Just sayin'.
  - X-Istence 16y ago
    It doesn't? This is news to me, do you have anymore information for me? I am in intrigued as that would change the entire model of the universe I have right now. </sarcasm> I've seen some web development in the past that was absolutely horrid, and I hope that after that project not a single programmer has to EVER touch code like that again.
    - pavel_lishin 16y ago
      > I've seen some web development in the past that was absolutely horrid What's your point?
      - X-Istence 16y ago
        That web developers don't necessarily fall in the realm of software development/engineering. I should have finished that post, I just kinda left it hanging. Something else came into mind at the time and I mindlessly hit submit.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

It's certainly possible to be a good programmer but to not have picked up HTML, but come on - making a simple web page is easy. A competent programmer should be able to pick it up quickly. (Note the "simple", though.)

Tichy 16y ago
Maybe they never felt the need to do it?
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Hence "pick up".

tel 16y ago

C'mon HN! This is DH3 at best. Don't let your egos get the better of your words. The obvious domain generalization is a much harder (but hardly impossible) statement to argue: Yes, there are people out there who couldn't <use basic building block of their field> if they had to, and have never heard of <some atomic concept they implicitly use every day>. We call them bad programmers. Guess what: they're everywhere. So the question becomes "if you only know how to function within some high level of abstraction are you effective at what you do?" I'd suggest that this holds pretty well if the level of abstraction you're using is too leaky. I don't have the slightest idea how to time an HD seek operation, but I can write to a file with a great deal of robustness. I think the op has a point though that if you operate mostly with RoR you might be ignorant to a non-trivial amount of detail which will relegate your work to being lower quality. My personal belief is that "web frameworks" aren't a sufficiently compartmentalized level of abstraction. RoR holds the opposite philosophy (evidenced by marketing and the opaqueness of Active Record, for instance) which causes a great deal of impedance when you have to dive into lower level concepts which were supposed to have vanished via RoR. So I agree with the op in that if you can only create things using RoR abstractions, you'll probably be in trouble before too long.