3 ms·

Even if all good programmers were programming at home the knowledge that a programmer is coding at home wouldn't give us much. G - good programmer C - coding a

by d0mine 17y ago

Even if all good programmers were programming at home the knowledge that a programmer is coding at home wouldn't give us much. G - good programmer C - coding at home P(G|C)*P(C) = P(C|G)*P(G) P(G) = 1% # percent of good programmers among all P(C) = 20% # percent of programmers that code at home P(C|G) = 100% # assume that all good programmers code at home Probability that a programmer is a good one given that it codes at home: P(G|C) = 1.0 * 0.01 / 0.2 = 5%

gruseom 17y ago
P(G) = 1% <-- Ok, that's in the range I suggested. P(C|G) = 100% <-- More than what I said, but I see your point. P(C) = 20% <-- Whoa, where did you get that? That's just an assumption that leads immediately to your conclusion.
- Retric 17y ago
  I think 20% is on the low side. But, you really need to define your terms. I would call 1/3 of all programmers useful, in that they can create more value then they cost. However, when you have a tiny budget and need to find useful programmers willing to work long hours for low pay then you really want young smart programmers with a lot of experience. And they only way to have a lot of experience at a young age is to do a lot of side projects. There are plenty of programmer that will blow your mind making 150+k/year, finding programmers that will blow you mind and are willing to take far less and a slice of equity is far harder. PS: There are talented older people that are also under payed, but that's normally because they are happy where they are. Finding them and getting them to work for you is hard and expensive.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    Good points. It's worth remembering that when it comes to this stuff, we're all anecdotalizing in the dark. I say that because it sounds like we've had quite different experiences. (20% of programmers work on side projects sounds low to you, very high to me.) Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible to properly define these terms, let alone measure them.
- d0mine 17y ago
  Yes, my assumption is there are many more programmers that code at home (whatever it means) than there are good programmers. In this case as I've shown "coding at home" doesn't have sufficient predictive power to be used as a quick test of being good at programming.

by d0mine 17y ago

gruseom 17y ago

P(G) = 1% <-- Ok, that's in the range I suggested. P(C|G) = 100% <-- More than what I said, but I see your point. P(C) = 20% <-- Whoa, where did you get that? That's just an assumption that leads immediately to your conclusion.

Retric 17y ago
I think 20% is on the low side. But, you really need to define your terms. I would call 1/3 of all programmers useful, in that they can create more value then they cost. However, when you have a tiny budget and need to find useful programmers willing to work long hours for low pay then you really want young smart programmers with a lot of experience. And they only way to have a lot of experience at a young age is to do a lot of side projects. There are plenty of programmer that will blow your mind making 150+k/year, finding programmers that will blow you mind and are willing to take far less and a slice of equity is far harder. PS: There are talented older people that are also under payed, but that's normally because they are happy where they are. Finding them and getting them to work for you is hard and expensive.
- gruseom 17y ago
  Good points. It's worth remembering that when it comes to this stuff, we're all anecdotalizing in the dark. I say that because it sounds like we've had quite different experiences. (20% of programmers work on side projects sounds low to you, very high to me.) Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible to properly define these terms, let alone measure them.
d0mine 17y ago
Yes, my assumption is there are many more programmers that code at home (whatever it means) than there are good programmers. In this case as I've shown "coding at home" doesn't have sufficient predictive power to be used as a quick test of being good at programming.