3 ms·

"... churning out quite a few CS graduates who are simply not smart enough to work as programmers on anything more sophisticated than Yet Another Java Accountin

by Zimahl 15y ago

"... churning out quite a few CS graduates who are simply not smart enough to work as programmers on anything more sophisticated than Yet Another Java Accounting Application, although they did manage to squeak through the newly-dumbed-down coursework." From a guy whose company isn't creating accounting applications but Yet Another Bug-Tracking Application, Yet Another Source Control Application, and Yet Another Remote Desktop Application. I generally like Spolsky's articles about software but this one is a little too pot-kettle for my taste. The plain fact is that the time of low-level languages where pointers are king is over. You can get great performance without them, more specifically without messing with memory at all. Of course, pointers still have their place and if you want to go that route feel free, but you can do a lot without them. As a disclaimer, I went to school where C was our weed out course and Java was the new-hotness. On graduation I was in a university focus group that specifically asked us if they should change from C to Java for the intro course (I voted against the change). I like pointers and recursion but do not see understanding those as defining a great developer. I've seen plenty of people who were way more adept at pointers that couldn't design a fuctional system if they tried.

mdwrigh2 15y ago
> I like pointers and recursion but do not see understanding those as defining a great developer. I've seen plenty of people who were way more adept at pointers that couldn't design a fuctional system if they tried. I think you're misunderstanding the argument a bit. The argument is that people that don't understand pointers and recursion are less likely to be very good software developers. This is not the same as saying that people that do understand recursion and pointers will be good software developers. It's just one of many metrics used to weed people during the interview process.
- Zimahl 15y ago
  I'm not misunderstanding the argument at all. I work with a bunch of good and great programmers and we don't touch pointers - at all. I would bet that without heading to the internet and re-learning pointers they wouldn't be able to do even a simple linked list with them. I would think that unless you work in hardware, it might be quite hard to find low-level coding jobs these days. That's because it's unnecessary in most situations. We don't need to push bits around anymore and managing memory by yourself is like starting a fire with flint and tinder. Yes, it can be fun, useful, and interesting, but it is rarely necessary anymore.

by Zimahl 15y ago

mdwrigh2 15y ago

> I like pointers and recursion but do not see understanding those as defining a great developer. I've seen plenty of people who were way more adept at pointers that couldn't design a fuctional system if they tried. I think you're misunderstanding the argument a bit. The argument is that people that don't understand pointers and recursion are less likely to be very good software developers. This is not the same as saying that people that do understand recursion and pointers will be good software developers. It's just one of many metrics used to weed people during the interview process.

Zimahl 15y ago
I'm not misunderstanding the argument at all. I work with a bunch of good and great programmers and we don't touch pointers - at all. I would bet that without heading to the internet and re-learning pointers they wouldn't be able to do even a simple linked list with them. I would think that unless you work in hardware, it might be quite hard to find low-level coding jobs these days. That's because it's unnecessary in most situations. We don't need to push bits around anymore and managing memory by yourself is like starting a fire with flint and tinder. Yes, it can be fun, useful, and interesting, but it is rarely necessary anymore.