3 ms·

That is common in several occupations. It is worth asking yourself an important question when you are deciding to become something that you are not. “Do you wan

by soneca 2y ago

That is common in several occupations. It is worth asking yourself an important question when you are deciding to become something that you are not. “Do you want to write or to be a writer?”, ”Do you want to develop software or be a software developer employee?” Often the role/title is desired for its status and/or money. I think that’s a fair enough motivation actually, except it should not _solely_ be that. You have to want to learn and practice. Or else, counterproductively, you will have less chance to get the role/title.

necovek 2y ago
I think the more important thing is that some people build up confidence upfront by reading up on theory, and embarking on a problem next; and others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background. And there's all sorts of middle ground. And as we develop, we move left and right on that continuum (and it also depends on the topic). So I don't even think what the article claims is universally true: I've seen people who simply get frustrated if you don't give them enough time to read up on a bunch of (to you) irrelevant documentation, and struggle to get anything done otherwise. The real take away for me is that people learn and synthesise knowledge in a myriad of ways, and we should strive to figure out which person prefers which way, and failing that, offer all of these ways so we can observe and learn.
- soneca 2y ago
  I agree. > ” others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background” I am exactly this type as a software developer. I am ok that I won’t be a computer scientist, nor a very senior engineer working for a state of the art company. Still, I enjoy developing software. I like the daily activity of writing code. Be it a personal project to learn stuff or learning new things at work. It is kind of limiting in a way (I will never expand the body of human knowledge in software development), but that’s ok for me. It’s liberating in other dimensions too (I am always creating new, if simple, stuff).

by soneca 2y ago

necovek 2y ago

I think the more important thing is that some people build up confidence upfront by reading up on theory, and embarking on a problem next; and others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background. And there's all sorts of middle ground. And as we develop, we move left and right on that continuum (and it also depends on the topic). So I don't even think what the article claims is universally true: I've seen people who simply get frustrated if you don't give them enough time to read up on a bunch of (to you) irrelevant documentation, and struggle to get anything done otherwise. The real take away for me is that people learn and synthesise knowledge in a myriad of ways, and we should strive to figure out which person prefers which way, and failing that, offer all of these ways so we can observe and learn.

soneca 2y ago
I agree. > ” others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background” I am exactly this type as a software developer. I am ok that I won’t be a computer scientist, nor a very senior engineer working for a state of the art company. Still, I enjoy developing software. I like the daily activity of writing code. Be it a personal project to learn stuff or learning new things at work. It is kind of limiting in a way (I will never expand the body of human knowledge in software development), but that’s ok for me. It’s liberating in other dimensions too (I am always creating new, if simple, stuff).