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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @03:07PM
I'm a QA lead, and disagree with that statement. Sadly many big firms have QA driven like monkeys. Follow some procedures, that's it, so when I see those on a CV I usually do a phone interview up front, weeds out a lot with minimal time wasting.
However, my interviews for QA engineers are a lot harder than for developers, not only do they need to know the stuff developers know, they need more general knowledge to and a good testing mind set on top. That's for my normal QA engineers, performance testers is another ballpark, there's no such thing as a junior performance tester.
Secondary, quality usually suffers a lot when you get only drama queens/rock stars as developer, usually for the same reason: if it installs on their box with their tools, it's installable and they're happy. The more rock star developers in a team, the easier you'll encounter these stupid shit bugs that shouldn't even have made it to my team.