SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jake Edge writes at LWN.net that there is a myth that programming skill is somehow distributed on a U-shaped curve and that people either "suck at programming" or that they "rock at programming", without leaving any room for those in between. Everyone is either an amazing programmer or "a worthless use of a seat" which doesn't make much sense. If you could measure programming ability somehow, its curve would look like the normal distribution. According to Edge this belief that programming ability fits into a bi-modal distribution is both "dangerous and a myth". "This myth sets up a world where you can only program if you are a rock star or a ninja. It is actively harmful in that is keeping people from learning programming, driving people out of programming, and it is preventing most of the growth and the improvement we'd like to see." If the only options are to be amazing or terrible, it leads people to believe they must be passionate about their career, that they must think about programming every waking moment of their life. If they take their eye off the ball even for a minute, they will slide right from amazing to terrible again leading people to be working crazy hours at work, to be constantly studying programming topics on their own time, and so on.
The truth is that programming isn't a passion or a talent, says Edge, it is just a bunch of skills that can be learned. Programming isn't even one thing, though people talk about it as if it were; it requires all sorts of skills and coding is just a small part of that. Things like design, communication, writing, and debugging are needed. If we embrace this idea that "it's cool to be okay at these skills"—that being average is fine—it will make programming less intimidating for newcomers. If the bar for success is set "at okay, rather than exceptional", the bar seems a lot easier to clear for those new to the community. According to Edge the tech industry is rife with sexism, racism, homophobia, and discrimination and although it is a multi-faceted problem, the talent myth is part of the problem. "In our industry, we recast the talent myth as "the myth of the brilliant asshole", says Jacob Kaplan-Moss. "This is the "10x programmer" who is so good at his job that people have to work with him even though his behavior is toxic. In reality, given the normal distribution, it's likely that these people aren't actually exceptional, but even if you grant that they are, how many developers does a 10x programmer have to drive away before it is a wash?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:12AM
If it the case that programming skills has a normal distribution. And it is the case that internet is global and thus connect a large group of people. Then the top of that distribution will compete directly with everybody else and anyone below will also experience people with top skills head on. And because a project can be used by an unlimited number of computers you got to be in the top range (more or less) to top it.
Of course if you have a brilliant idea in another area and just need to express it in code. Then you have a case.
The difference comes when you need to think about how to do things in a smart way such that your code won't fail. And how figure out exceptions and corner cases before they show up so that you can prevent them from ever happening. It's also about many steps ahead abstraction. What happens if I do X, and what happens if millions of computers does X?.. and so on.
Most people can be trained to code. Most people will fail when things has to scale, be reliable, predictable, and efficient. Preferably at the same time. And your boss pushes you to fix it fast.
Being an asshole usually is about other people not getting that they just don't get it. And at some point people get fed up at explaining.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:31AM
Here's a good example of your final sentence:
Learn how to construct a sentence correctly in English, you self-important cock.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:30PM
Sign in and post like a man, you chicken-shit little faggot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @03:02PM
If they don't get it, you're not explaining it well enough. The responsibility to transfer knowledge always rests with the person who has the knowledge and not with the person who needs to learn it. Somewhere in the universe is the knowledge of immortality for humans, but since we haven't discovered it, we're all still just dumb apes, it doesn't mean the universe is an asshole, it means it didn't explain it well enough or at all and for all the beauty that the universe contains if we're forced to learn it on our own it's going to take longer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tramii on Tuesday May 05 2015, @04:08PM
The responsibility to transfer knowledge always rests with the person who has the knowledge and not with the person who needs to learn it.
Negative. The responsibility to transfer knowledge rests equally upon both the teacher and the student. The teacher has to be willing to teach *and* the student has to be willing to learn. You cannot place all the responsibility upon one or the other. A willing teacher cannot instruct an unwilling student. A willing student cannot learn from an unwilling teacher.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Tuesday May 05 2015, @04:30PM
There are limits. I used to teach Mastercam on a regular basis. There was approximately a bell curve distribution of aptitude. Some would take a week to pick up what others could in a couple hours.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:17PM
The responsibility to transfer knowledge always rests with the person who has the knowledge and not with the person who needs to learn it.
Tell that to my cat. She trained me faster than I was able to train her.
But seriously, your failure to convey the knowledge of how to program to someone who can not understand it isn't always your fault. Some people just do not think in a linear or abstract fashion. They will never grasp basic programming concepts. If you're not a problem solver you can't be taught to be a good programmer. Some people just won't care enough to pay attention.
Sometimes it's the teacher, but most of the time it is the student (for one or more of many reasons).
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 06 2015, @11:22PM
So if I fail to teach the house cat about differential equations its my fault? ;-)
Some people just won't get some stuff.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:45PM
I think you're spot on, but there might be more as well.
We've all heard this sort of argument before I guess and this time around I got to thinking about a few things:
1. Two entirely different things are being conflated: (programming) excellence and “acceptable personality”.
2. The people who are making statements like those in TFA are arguing that personality or opinion negates skill.
3. It is not about the capability of programming at all but about choosing who is “allowed” to have those jobs and any (imagined or not) prestige that goes with it.
It reeks and it seems like the conclusion is that this isn't accidental in the form of good intent gone bad but deliberately destructive. No wonder they only meet/see “assholes”.
Let's hope they choose for example their own surgeons the same way on the politics of “acceptable personality” alone.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))