5 ms·

"After 30 years you will get the hang of this and be a good programmer." I wonder if a genuine beginner reading that line would be put off instantly or encoura

by ukdm 15y ago

"After 30 years you will get the hang of this and be a good programmer." I wonder if a genuine beginner reading that line would be put off instantly or encouraged to find out if it really would take that long?

mechanical_fish 15y ago
Given that this sentence occurs immediately after a five-line example of a working program, the beginner would probably say "but, you just got something working in five lines! what are you talking about?" It takes time to learn the truth. I remember when I first read the results of the various productivity studies cited in McConnell's Code Complete, the ones which estimate that the typical programmer creates a handful of lines of bug-free code per day, on average. It seemed like such a stupidly small number, then. Not so unbelievable now. The bug-free part is harder than it looks.
- glassx 15y ago
  I think we should take it as "You'll still have plenty of stuff to learn even after 30 years, just like today." Which is encouraging if you're a learning-addict like me :) By the way, I completely agree with him. After years of Eclipse or Visual Studio, it was refreshing for me going back to basics, firing vim and getting stuff done without any distractions.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    After years of Eclipse or Visual Studio, it was refreshing for me going back to basics, firing vim and getting stuff done without any distractions. What distracts you? When I'm coding I see the text editor, that's it. But I guess if it distracts you, then it distracts you. My aunt can't cook with the radio on, because it distracts her. To me it adds to the experience, but I guess to each their own.
    - ldh 15y ago
      Personally I think the text editors in all IDEs I've tried are awful anyway. Plus IDEs are sometimes fiddly to get set up right for a given language; it's easy to sink way too much time into getting things set up when you could just be writing working code. Also, it's probably helpful to learn a new language without the instant crutch of auto-completion features.
      - roel_v 15y ago
        "Also, it's probably helpful to learn a new language without the instant crutch of auto-completion features." How is that? Why is poring over the API docs of a library to find out if you need GetSize(), get_count() or Count() better than having the computer look it up for you while you're typing? Auto-complete doesn't help in learning a language, only in using an API - and at that it's good. I guess I'm being all Statler and Waldorf here, but the hipster 'look at me I only need a text editor' is bullshit. In the OP the author boasts about using makefiles FFS! If there is one over-'engineered', obscure, bandaid-over-bandaid 'solution' for problems that only exist because of historical cruft and that is inscrutable to beginners, it's make!
        Roboprog 15y ago
        I rather like "make". Far preferable to "ant", IMHO. Some make features are perhaps a bit obscure, but the basic structure of: output.file: input.1 input.2 build_it input.* -o output.file is quite straightforward.
        roel_v 15y ago
        OK I'll concede that make on its own in its most basic form isn't all that bad (although it's not hard to make anything look good by comparing it with Ant); it's the autotools toolchain that makes it such a jungle. Which is, strictly speaking, separate from make, and is what I was mostly agitating against.
        ldh 15y ago
        I guess I'm being all Statler and Waldorf here, but the hipster 'look at me I only need a text editor' is bullshit. I'll grant you that it's been a fairly annoying meme over the last year or two, but people are being productive every day using text editors and they probably don't care whether you think it's bullshit or not. Be productive and use what you like. Since you have such a strong reaction to it I'd love to know why you think it's "bullshit".
rokhayakebe 15y ago
It won't. A beginner (who really wants something) ignores any obstacles.
malkia 15y ago
That resonates with Norvig's "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years" - http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html

by ukdm 15y ago

mechanical_fish 15y ago

Given that this sentence occurs immediately after a five-line example of a working program, the beginner would probably say "but, you just got something working in five lines! what are you talking about?" It takes time to learn the truth. I remember when I first read the results of the various productivity studies cited in McConnell's Code Complete, the ones which estimate that the typical programmer creates a handful of lines of bug-free code per day, on average. It seemed like such a stupidly small number, then. Not so unbelievable now. The bug-free part is harder than it looks.

glassx 15y ago
I think we should take it as "You'll still have plenty of stuff to learn even after 30 years, just like today." Which is encouraging if you're a learning-addict like me :) By the way, I completely agree with him. After years of Eclipse or Visual Studio, it was refreshing for me going back to basics, firing vim and getting stuff done without any distractions.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  After years of Eclipse or Visual Studio, it was refreshing for me going back to basics, firing vim and getting stuff done without any distractions. What distracts you? When I'm coding I see the text editor, that's it. But I guess if it distracts you, then it distracts you. My aunt can't cook with the radio on, because it distracts her. To me it adds to the experience, but I guess to each their own.
  - ldh 15y ago
    Personally I think the text editors in all IDEs I've tried are awful anyway. Plus IDEs are sometimes fiddly to get set up right for a given language; it's easy to sink way too much time into getting things set up when you could just be writing working code. Also, it's probably helpful to learn a new language without the instant crutch of auto-completion features.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      "Also, it's probably helpful to learn a new language without the instant crutch of auto-completion features." How is that? Why is poring over the API docs of a library to find out if you need GetSize(), get_count() or Count() better than having the computer look it up for you while you're typing? Auto-complete doesn't help in learning a language, only in using an API - and at that it's good. I guess I'm being all Statler and Waldorf here, but the hipster 'look at me I only need a text editor' is bullshit. In the OP the author boasts about using makefiles FFS! If there is one over-'engineered', obscure, bandaid-over-bandaid 'solution' for problems that only exist because of historical cruft and that is inscrutable to beginners, it's make!
      - Roboprog 15y ago
        I rather like "make". Far preferable to "ant", IMHO. Some make features are perhaps a bit obscure, but the basic structure of: output.file: input.1 input.2 build_it input.* -o output.file is quite straightforward.
        roel_v 15y ago
        OK I'll concede that make on its own in its most basic form isn't all that bad (although it's not hard to make anything look good by comparing it with Ant); it's the autotools toolchain that makes it such a jungle. Which is, strictly speaking, separate from make, and is what I was mostly agitating against.
      - ldh 15y ago
        I guess I'm being all Statler and Waldorf here, but the hipster 'look at me I only need a text editor' is bullshit. I'll grant you that it's been a fairly annoying meme over the last year or two, but people are being productive every day using text editors and they probably don't care whether you think it's bullshit or not. Be productive and use what you like. Since you have such a strong reaction to it I'd love to know why you think it's "bullshit".

rokhayakebe 15y ago

It won't. A beginner (who really wants something) ignores any obstacles.

malkia 15y ago

That resonates with Norvig's "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years" - http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html