So, as a self-taught programmer I know a smattering of those things (admittedly compilers, FSM's and functional programming came from my engineering degree). T

So, as a self-taught programmer I know a smattering of those things (admittedly compilers, FSM's and functional programming came from my engineering degree). The problem I have with that question (as already pointed out) is that it is phrased as if those things are crucial aspects of "being a programmer", or being good at it. Meh. I use bits and pieces of the skillset; but I realised a while ago that the bits I use are things I knew (and made use of) way before knowing the topic in depth. Large parts of those topics are theoretical underpinning which is undeniably useful, but something you can get along without if necessary. And that, I think, is the main difference between self-taught and taught programmers; the latter have a lot more theoretical understanding of programming concepts. In most cases it doesn't set them apart, but in the case of hard problems, or unique solutions having the theory is required for a solution. I argue that the problem is classifying these things as "skills" rather than theory/concepts.