SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times has coverage on the phenomenon of Developer Bootcamps, that claim to do in a matter of a couple of months what used to take at least a couple of years for an associate's degree. These cram courses are apparently getting about a 75% job placement rate.
Have any Soylentils either gone through these programs, or worked with others who have? If so, what are your experiences?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Developer Bootcamps - Be a Programmer in Two Months!
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 46 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another.
-- H. L. Mencken
(Score: 2, Interesting) by zugedneb on Wednesday October 15 2014, @04:46PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what programming is.
Let me give an anecdote: once I took a computer Graphics course. We used the book by Edward Angel, in that version he had Opengl and C. The teacher was a local hotshot (derogatory) in functional programming, and instead of using C and the actual opengl commands, he wrote some scary shit in python, that was used as material for labs. Not many liked his code at all.
But here is the fun thing: first week there was 1 phd helping out, second week 2 of them, and guess what, third week the professor himself came down to the computer hall to help out...
I was angry and tired, because I had some other, actually difficult, stuff to do, so I wanted to mock him, so I asked him if it was the success of his code that brought him down.
Since this guy is an FP person, sarcasm was completely lost on him, instead his said this:
There seems to be 2 groups of people: one that understands liner algebra and opengl in general, the theory so to speak, but do not care very much for the actual coding - they coerce the phd's to fill in the gaps =) , and the other group who seems to do animations and other kinds of "magic" with the code, but don't actually understand a shit - the artists...
This made me, after some years of thinking (I am slow wtf) realise that, me, as an EE, do not use my LANGUAGE skill when I program, instead I think in the same way as when I solve electronics or automatic control problems: I stare into my head, and can kind of see the object with "the inner EYE"... (as Simmons says in his book on topology and analysis, you have top learn to see with the eye of the mind)
Then there is the second kind of coder: the one who relies on the linguistic skill of the brain - there is really not much I can say about this type, except that they like to float around on "higher level" programming languages, and they tend not to know a lot of math or hardware.
I would not be amazed, if it is this second type of people who find liberal arts and crash courses useful... Neither do they, likely, understand the kind of complexity code that lives near the hardware or near math requires, but they have an easy time grasping the complexity of human interaction, or so it seems...
Fill in the gaps, pls pls pls...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @05:26PM
Functional languages are not linguistics. Quite the opposite: They tend to reduce the linguistic element to the absolutely required minimum. There's more linguistics in your typical OOP language, or even in standard procedural languages, than in pure functional languages. Indeed, what people tend to hate most about the prototypical functional language, Lisp, is the absolutely syntax. Which for almost everything is: Open parenthesis, sequence of Lisp objects, close parenthesis.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:56PM
If you do not have an internal "model", that is, you do not understand how some thing work or is made, but you are able to "use" it, than that is language.
You formulate a sequence of operations on a set of objects to achieve a goal that is composed by those objects. Yepp, that is language.
The issue here is context: there were some people who had no problem using code that was untyped and nonlinear to make things happen. They did not give a damn how things were typed, what was in the dictionaries and tuples... They did not give a damn in that when you looked at a function, you could not tell, by the declaration, what type of objects it took. They learned to mimic the thought process of the teacher and made things happen. The problem was that they did not have to understand the theory behind it to make it work.
They learned to speak the "language" of the teacher.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax