4 ms·

No, we don't. I don't want some guild or certification authority telling me I can't program for a living until I've done 2 years of "journeyman" programming and

No, we don't. I don't want some guild or certification authority telling me I can't program for a living until I've done 2 years of "journeyman" programming and passed my licensing exams.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Is that what Murray is advocating? The article I read suggested that using standardized tests would be a cheaper alternative than college -- but if you'd prefer four years of paying and not working to two years of getting paid to learn, you can at least enjoy the status quo.
- menloparkbum 18y ago
  Is that what Murray is advocating? No, but that seemed to be what the commenter I replied to was advocating.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Too many conclusions jumped to. Though guilds have had legal backing like this historically, I don't think you need that to have some form of benefit from a "programmer's guild." I think you could base it entirely on empirical results -- successful programming projects being the sole measure of value. Come to think of it, Open Source projects somewhat fill this role.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 18y ago
I'm having trouble finding it right now, but there was a good argument posted here a while back for requiring a certification proving that programmers know how to write secure code. The analogy was that the market can already sort out good chefs from bad chefs, but that there should be a basic certification to prove that you understand food safety.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  The thing is, the market only sorts out egregious programmers. The security certification is a wonderful idea! I think that would be a great place to start. (And end, perhaps.) The test for this could be entirely empirical. An applicant could be required to place $1000 in escrow, and implement a web application on the guild's servers. They would be required to add certain features. During the test, anyone would be welcome to try and hack the website. If anyone can prove that they are successful, they get the $1000. If the features all get implemented with no hacking, then the applicant gets their money back, minus the fee.
  - invisible 18y ago
    Although I did laugh, I have to ask if this was this a joke? So $1000 or $100 is what you pay (depending on if you fail or succeed)? Aside from the monetary figures you mentioned, sure it sounds like a great idea for a staffing business.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      Not a joke. Do you think the amounts are too high? This thing doesn't even have to be a certification. It could be a contest.
      - justin 18y ago
        This is silly. Programming, networking, etc certifications exist: big companies like MSFT give them out if you jump through all the hoops and prove your high skillz. Fortunately for us crappy programmers on the web, companies that give a shit about those certifications care about hiring people with them, and companies that don't, don't. Yay for free markets!
        stcredzero 18y ago
        More words in my mouth. In many cases, the market settles for something that just shows the hiring manager dotted their I's. (A hoop-jumping exercise that feeds another hoop-jumping exercise.) If there were certifications based on actual results in practice, this would be beneficial on many levels. It would be a way to disseminate good practices, and it would be a more direct indicator of the ability to produce results. In other words: the market does do something, but someone could do even better.
jraines 18y ago
It seems like it would be nice as a norm, but not as a codified system with licenses and such.
stcredzero 18y ago
We don't? I've been in a lot of different programming shops as a consultant, mostly in large organizations, and let me tell you -- I don't think a lot of the people out there who are programming really should be. I've had to be the hero far too many times for shops where someone didn't realize doing something was O(n^2) and doing it another way was O(n). The industry doesn't need to the government to penalize non-guild programmers to benefit from a guild. All the guild has to do is to show that it is effective in producing competent, knowledgeable programmers. I suspect that things like employment at Microsoft have filled this niche. (Sub-optimally.) An organization that is designed to fulfill this particular purpose would be much better at its function and more robust. A majority of US drivers think they are above average. I have met very few under-qualified programmers who realized it.
- astine 18y ago
  He man, I know some neo-guildists if you want me to put you in touch. :P
astine 18y ago
I don't know, I can see the education model being useful. I'd rather not have to submit to a guild or union (unlike some friends of mine,) but I can see the value of serving time in a real programming shop with experience and competent (hopefully) individuals as part of one's education. Of course, I think this is called an 'internship' these days.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
this is the kind of thing that can only be implemented 1 company at a time. trying to make some sort of organization to do it would create problems.

No, we don't. I don't want some guild or certification authority telling me I can't program for a living until I've done 2 years of "journeyman" programming and passed my licensing exams.

byrneseyeview 18y ago

Is that what Murray is advocating? The article I read suggested that using standardized tests would be a cheaper alternative than college -- but if you'd prefer four years of paying and not working to two years of getting paid to learn, you can at least enjoy the status quo.

menloparkbum 18y ago
Is that what Murray is advocating? No, but that seemed to be what the commenter I replied to was advocating.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Too many conclusions jumped to. Though guilds have had legal backing like this historically, I don't think you need that to have some form of benefit from a "programmer's guild." I think you could base it entirely on empirical results -- successful programming projects being the sole measure of value. Come to think of it, Open Source projects somewhat fill this role.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 18y ago

I'm having trouble finding it right now, but there was a good argument posted here a while back for requiring a certification proving that programmers know how to write secure code. The analogy was that the market can already sort out good chefs from bad chefs, but that there should be a basic certification to prove that you understand food safety.

stcredzero 18y ago
The thing is, the market only sorts out egregious programmers. The security certification is a wonderful idea! I think that would be a great place to start. (And end, perhaps.) The test for this could be entirely empirical. An applicant could be required to place $1000 in escrow, and implement a web application on the guild's servers. They would be required to add certain features. During the test, anyone would be welcome to try and hack the website. If anyone can prove that they are successful, they get the $1000. If the features all get implemented with no hacking, then the applicant gets their money back, minus the fee.
- invisible 18y ago
  Although I did laugh, I have to ask if this was this a joke? So $1000 or $100 is what you pay (depending on if you fail or succeed)? Aside from the monetary figures you mentioned, sure it sounds like a great idea for a staffing business.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Not a joke. Do you think the amounts are too high? This thing doesn't even have to be a certification. It could be a contest.
    - justin 18y ago
      This is silly. Programming, networking, etc certifications exist: big companies like MSFT give them out if you jump through all the hoops and prove your high skillz. Fortunately for us crappy programmers on the web, companies that give a shit about those certifications care about hiring people with them, and companies that don't, don't. Yay for free markets!
      - stcredzero 18y ago
        More words in my mouth. In many cases, the market settles for something that just shows the hiring manager dotted their I's. (A hoop-jumping exercise that feeds another hoop-jumping exercise.) If there were certifications based on actual results in practice, this would be beneficial on many levels. It would be a way to disseminate good practices, and it would be a more direct indicator of the ability to produce results. In other words: the market does do something, but someone could do even better.

jraines 18y ago

It seems like it would be nice as a norm, but not as a codified system with licenses and such.

stcredzero 18y ago

We don't? I've been in a lot of different programming shops as a consultant, mostly in large organizations, and let me tell you -- I don't think a lot of the people out there who are programming really should be. I've had to be the hero far too many times for shops where someone didn't realize doing something was O(n^2) and doing it another way was O(n). The industry doesn't need to the government to penalize non-guild programmers to benefit from a guild. All the guild has to do is to show that it is effective in producing competent, knowledgeable programmers. I suspect that things like employment at Microsoft have filled this niche. (Sub-optimally.) An organization that is designed to fulfill this particular purpose would be much better at its function and more robust. A majority of US drivers think they are above average. I have met very few under-qualified programmers who realized it.

astine 18y ago
He man, I know some neo-guildists if you want me to put you in touch. :P

astine 18y ago

I don't know, I can see the education model being useful. I'd rather not have to submit to a guild or union (unlike some friends of mine,) but I can see the value of serving time in a real programming shop with experience and competent (hopefully) individuals as part of one's education. Of course, I think this is called an 'internship' these days.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

this is the kind of thing that can only be implemented 1 company at a time. trying to make some sort of organization to do it would create problems.