4 ms·

I don't know about that. I see this as a slam against CRUD-type developers who can't actually think algorithmically very well. They're good at wiring stuff toge

by logn 14y ago

I don't know about that. I see this as a slam against CRUD-type developers who can't actually think algorithmically very well. They're good at wiring stuff together but it stops there.

chao- 14y ago
I would like to make two points on behalf of "CRUD-type developers": 1. Everyone starts somewhere. There's no reason to place an "us vs. them" lens on things as if a "CRUD-type developer" can never learn, improve or grow the scope of their interest. 2. How many domains (workflows, businesses, entire industries) could be improved via a simple CRUD layer on top of a database, and have yet to have said CRUD app made? IMO many. As software continues to "eat the world", there will be a need for more people to make the latest CRUD applications. And what happens when a CRUD application needs more advanced features? Either the "CRUD-type developer" will rise to the occasion and learn some new skills, or a more experienced (e.g. the author of the blog post) individual will be hired/tasked with the job. Even if I want to agree with the concept of the article, overall I find it to be a bit petty and underwhelming in its exploration of the topic. Particularly the "advantages/disadvantages" section.
andybak 14y ago
I'd rather most 'CRUD' developers spent their time getting better at UX and solving user problems than they spent it learning algorithms. I'm never going to write a compiler and don't especially want to. However I hope my attention to detail for user-facing features and my ability to solve real-world problems keeps improving and I think we need more of that type of programmer than we do the computer-sciencey type.
jakejake 14y ago
As a CRUD developer myself (who actually has written frameworks in multiple languages I might add) I find your tone somewhat elitist. I am personally bored to tears delving into algorithms, but I'm perfectly capable of writing them. Though I'm no expert I have dabbled in simple things like sorts and search algorithms. I simply don't enjoy it. I like solving other types of problems. I have great appreciation for people who are improving the tools that I use. People who write virtual machines and compilers and parsers impress me. I am glad they are interested in the work down in the lower layers, though I have no desire to join them. I think it's unfair to lump everybody together, there is a lot of gray area. People like myself learn skills as necessary for our work as well as personal interest. Not because of mental deficiency.

by logn 14y ago

I don't know about that. I see this as a slam against CRUD-type developers who can't actually think algorithmically very well. They're good at wiring stuff together but it stops there.

chao- 14y ago

I would like to make two points on behalf of "CRUD-type developers": 1. Everyone starts somewhere. There's no reason to place an "us vs. them" lens on things as if a "CRUD-type developer" can never learn, improve or grow the scope of their interest. 2. How many domains (workflows, businesses, entire industries) could be improved via a simple CRUD layer on top of a database, and have yet to have said CRUD app made? IMO many. As software continues to "eat the world", there will be a need for more people to make the latest CRUD applications. And what happens when a CRUD application needs more advanced features? Either the "CRUD-type developer" will rise to the occasion and learn some new skills, or a more experienced (e.g. the author of the blog post) individual will be hired/tasked with the job. Even if I want to agree with the concept of the article, overall I find it to be a bit petty and underwhelming in its exploration of the topic. Particularly the "advantages/disadvantages" section.

andybak 14y ago

I'd rather most 'CRUD' developers spent their time getting better at UX and solving user problems than they spent it learning algorithms. I'm never going to write a compiler and don't especially want to. However I hope my attention to detail for user-facing features and my ability to solve real-world problems keeps improving and I think we need more of that type of programmer than we do the computer-sciencey type.

jakejake 14y ago

As a CRUD developer myself (who actually has written frameworks in multiple languages I might add) I find your tone somewhat elitist. I am personally bored to tears delving into algorithms, but I'm perfectly capable of writing them. Though I'm no expert I have dabbled in simple things like sorts and search algorithms. I simply don't enjoy it. I like solving other types of problems. I have great appreciation for people who are improving the tools that I use. People who write virtual machines and compilers and parsers impress me. I am glad they are interested in the work down in the lower layers, though I have no desire to join them. I think it's unfair to lump everybody together, there is a lot of gray area. People like myself learn skills as necessary for our work as well as personal interest. Not because of mental deficiency.