4 ms·

The best software is reliable, intuitive, and has genuinely useful functionality. Like most ideas that violate the concept of the golden mean, this idea is appe

The best software is reliable, intuitive, and has genuinely useful functionality. Like most ideas that violate the concept of the golden mean, this idea is appealing but fundamentally broken. He refutes his own point about the free market when he says it is currently broken (businesses hire students with Comp. Sci degrees even though they can't necessarily program well), but that the same broken free market will be sufficient to determine if programmers can program well. Identifying one arbitrary facet of software development and demanding that coders be experts at it, even if they can't do anything else, is shortsighted. This would make sense if testing was truely the hardest aspect of programming: if testing was the great ravine that thwarted aspiring programmers. That, however, has not been my experience. Testing is not trivial, but making good design choices and understanding the concepts of programming that he disparages will take longer to learn than testing, and the free market has proven it evaluates these qualifications coarsely at best. To be an expert is to have absorbed the symbols of your domain to the extent that they can be used effortlessly. Testing is only one of those symbols, and focusing on is flawed. So is ignoring it completely.

raganwald 19y ago
"He refutes his own point about the free market when he says it is currently broken (businesses hire students with Comp. Sci degrees even though they can't necessarily program well), but that the same broken free market will be sufficient to determine if programmers can program well." You are assuming that the goal of the free market is to hire good programmers. It isn't. Do you think managers are holding their heads in their hands, moaning that they can't find good programmers? Outside of start ups, they don't care. That is why I say the free market works. Yes, business hires Comp. Sci. people from "JavaSchools," but that's what they want! I am not suggesting that someone with this hypothetical certification is an expert, or even good. I think I said that five or even six times in the post. Don't confuse the rant with a hypothetical measure of a "good programmer." It isn't!!! It is a description of qualities I personally think are necessary but not sufficient. Please do not put words in my mouth about what I value and what I disparage. I said I do not care about certain things for the purpose of having this hypothetical certification. Take a few minutes googling me or reading my blog before deciding what I value or disparage. So back to the free market: the "problem" with the free market for programmers is similar to the "problem" with the free market for pollution, worker safety, and a bunch of other things we regulate. We have discovered that left to their own devices, businesses will make choices that expose their workers, their customers, and the public to danger. I don't care if a business making software for dive computers hires someone who takes four times as long to write code for half the hourly wage. The business can make the call about whether this makes sense. But I do care that the calculations are not broken, exposing me to death through Oxygen Toxicity, Nitrogen Narcosis, or the Bends. I'm not going on a crusade, it's just a post, but it's obvious to me that if businesses are left to make choices for themselves, they will put their customers in harm's way. And that's all I want to prevent. Summary: certification of the type I described is meant to be necessary but not sufficient. It doesn't say a Chef can cook well, it says a chef will not accidentally poison the soup.
- willarson 19y ago
  As per inserting words into your mouth, I addressed your argument, not you. Regarding my post as if it were a personal attack is a disservice. I don't follow your point about it being obvious that businesses will, left to themselves, put their customers in harm's way. Left to themselves businesses will do what maximizes profits. The behaviors that maximize profit are determined by the demand established by consumers. When consumers are unwilling to pay a premium for safety, then businesses will not provide safe products. Thus it is consumers, in their uninformed quest to maximize utility, that are hurting themselves. Consumers need better information so they can make better decisions, as it stands they are making a flawed choice (assuming that safety is indeed worth more than we currently pay for it). On the other hand, businesses are making the only rational decision available by continuing to produce unsafe products for customers who won't adequately compensate companies for safer products. Your certification mandates an additional cost on business, one that customers are currently unwilling to pay for, and thus fulfills the role of taxation, which--if we are going to buy into the free economy myth--will result in lower overall utility: for both customers and businesses.
  - raganwald 19y ago
    By your argument, we should abolish laws regulating workplace safety, product safety, and pollution control. All of these things could be enforced by consumer demand, but they are not. All of these things impose a cost on business, driving up prices. There is room for believing that the free market should be unfettered to the point that businesses can be left to choose what level of safety to provide for workers, left to choose whether to make safe products, and left to choose whether to pollute our environment. If you believe that, I think we differ at some axiomatic level, not a logical level. I know that businesses are making "rational" decisions. But just because it "maximizes their utility" doesn't mean I want them to do it. Enron was rational. Why do we pass laws against its behaviour? Why can't we leave it to the marketplace to choose where to invest? Again, this is a deep, axiomatic issue. If you are fundamentally against a regulated environment, I understand your view without agreement.
    - willarson 19y ago

raganwald 19y ago

"He refutes his own point about the free market when he says it is currently broken (businesses hire students with Comp. Sci degrees even though they can't necessarily program well), but that the same broken free market will be sufficient to determine if programmers can program well." You are assuming that the goal of the free market is to hire good programmers. It isn't. Do you think managers are holding their heads in their hands, moaning that they can't find good programmers? Outside of start ups, they don't care. That is why I say the free market works. Yes, business hires Comp. Sci. people from "JavaSchools," but that's what they want! I am not suggesting that someone with this hypothetical certification is an expert, or even good. I think I said that five or even six times in the post. Don't confuse the rant with a hypothetical measure of a "good programmer." It isn't!!! It is a description of qualities I personally think are necessary but not sufficient. Please do not put words in my mouth about what I value and what I disparage. I said I do not care about certain things for the purpose of having this hypothetical certification. Take a few minutes googling me or reading my blog before deciding what I value or disparage. So back to the free market: the "problem" with the free market for programmers is similar to the "problem" with the free market for pollution, worker safety, and a bunch of other things we regulate. We have discovered that left to their own devices, businesses will make choices that expose their workers, their customers, and the public to danger. I don't care if a business making software for dive computers hires someone who takes four times as long to write code for half the hourly wage. The business can make the call about whether this makes sense. But I do care that the calculations are not broken, exposing me to death through Oxygen Toxicity, Nitrogen Narcosis, or the Bends. I'm not going on a crusade, it's just a post, but it's obvious to me that if businesses are left to make choices for themselves, they will put their customers in harm's way. And that's all I want to prevent. Summary: certification of the type I described is meant to be necessary but not sufficient. It doesn't say a Chef can cook well, it says a chef will not accidentally poison the soup.

willarson 19y ago
As per inserting words into your mouth, I addressed your argument, not you. Regarding my post as if it were a personal attack is a disservice. I don't follow your point about it being obvious that businesses will, left to themselves, put their customers in harm's way. Left to themselves businesses will do what maximizes profits. The behaviors that maximize profit are determined by the demand established by consumers. When consumers are unwilling to pay a premium for safety, then businesses will not provide safe products. Thus it is consumers, in their uninformed quest to maximize utility, that are hurting themselves. Consumers need better information so they can make better decisions, as it stands they are making a flawed choice (assuming that safety is indeed worth more than we currently pay for it). On the other hand, businesses are making the only rational decision available by continuing to produce unsafe products for customers who won't adequately compensate companies for safer products. Your certification mandates an additional cost on business, one that customers are currently unwilling to pay for, and thus fulfills the role of taxation, which--if we are going to buy into the free economy myth--will result in lower overall utility: for both customers and businesses.
- raganwald 19y ago
  By your argument, we should abolish laws regulating workplace safety, product safety, and pollution control. All of these things could be enforced by consumer demand, but they are not. All of these things impose a cost on business, driving up prices. There is room for believing that the free market should be unfettered to the point that businesses can be left to choose what level of safety to provide for workers, left to choose whether to make safe products, and left to choose whether to pollute our environment. If you believe that, I think we differ at some axiomatic level, not a logical level. I know that businesses are making "rational" decisions. But just because it "maximizes their utility" doesn't mean I want them to do it. Enron was rational. Why do we pass laws against its behaviour? Why can't we leave it to the marketplace to choose where to invest? Again, this is a deep, axiomatic issue. If you are fundamentally against a regulated environment, I understand your view without agreement.
  - willarson 19y ago