• not registered (unregistered) in reply to C What?

    hmmm...maybe I'll start calling it the C-Shift-3 language.  got a nice touch to it and sounds cooler than C-Sharp (or C-Pound).  plus, there's no confusion there as to what your talking about.

  • tlg (unregistered) in reply to not registered

    Therere's no confusion, huh?  Try that on a British keyboard layout and see how far you get!

  • (cs) in reply to tlg
    Anonymous:
    Therere's no confusion, huh?  Try that on a British keyboard layout and see how far you get!


    < sarcasm >
    Geez why can't you Brits learn to speak English like us 'mericans...
    < / sarcasm >
  • (cs) in reply to Maurits

    What's so bad about how he pronounced C-TicTacToeBoard

  • (cs) in reply to David Grant

    Not as bizarre as you'd think--in chess notation, # is indeed used as a shorthand for ++ (both symbols, like the ? sign, mean "checkmate").

  • (cs) in reply to silverpie
    silverpie:

    Not as bizarre as you'd think--in chess notation, # is indeed used as a shorthand for ++ (both symbols, like the ? sign, mean "checkmate").



    Chess notation? That's wa-a-ay worse than Hungarian notation.
  • (cs) in reply to silverpie
    silverpie:

    Not as bizarre as you'd think--in chess notation, # is indeed used as a shorthand for ++ (both symbols, like the ? sign, mean "checkmate").



    Gack!  Not correct.

    There are "check" notations:
    + means "check"
    ++ means "double-check"
    # means "checkmate"

    Then there are position evaluations:
    +/- means White has an edge
    -/+ means Black has an edge
    = means the position is level and quiet
    ? means "an imbalanced position" - level but exciting
  • (cs) in reply to Maurits

    Chess notation has dialects--you are using the Yugoslav (Informant) one. ++ is actually the oldest version, and is the one referred to in the Laws of Chess. It's most common in handwritten scores, where its ease of drawing is valuable and its two-characterness irrelevant. (At least in chess, you get enough context to figure most of these things out!)

    On an unrelated note, are HTML WTF's (that is, horrible misuses of HTML as opposed to of SQL/Ctictactoe/Java/...) accepted here? I came across a pretty impressive one today...

  • (cs) in reply to silverpie

    I've never seen # used in a handwritten score.  I've always seen
    0 - 1 (if Black won)
    or
    1 - 0 (if White won)

    But I've only seen USA scores.  Notation does differ from country to country, granted... in US a Knight move is Nf3, in Germany it's Sf3... in Russia a bishop move is Cf3 (where C is the cyrillic version of the Latin "S")...

  • Zonker (unregistered)

    First of all, I just came across this site, starting with the exceedingly long SQL statement. WTF, indeed.

    But, regarding this, despite the fact that the guy obviously had little handle on the languages he was being interviewed for, I would like to speak up for spelling and grammar and C-Pound or C-Hash.

    Remember that there are legions of Russian, Ukrainian, India, etc. programmers who are considered to be quite good. Well, they may or may not be good programmers, but they probably do not have excellent english skills. I just left a position in Ukraine in charge of a small (4 person) IT department with a DB guy, Web guy, Delphi guy and our Sys Admin). They are all great and can do anything I want them to, but if one of them said C-Pound, I understand, because they had never need to say it, and # is considered a pound symbol, right?

    Now about russian, ukrainian, indian IT people being so excellent and cheap, I don't buy it. I had a programmer (fired him) who had three lengthy Delphi procedures which were 90% the same. Easily turned into a parameter-based procedures, but the concept seemed foreign to him. Sheesh.

  • lancha (unregistered) in reply to Rob L.

    > In the world of music, the note C-Sharp is the same as D-Flat. I therefore (from time to time) call it Db (Ive gotten yelled at by people for saying it... I guess they don't find it too amusing ;D)

    actually C# and Db are not the same thing, they just are under the temperate scale.

  • (cs) in reply to wtijsma
    wtijsma:
    are you talking about "that Java improvement with Delphi model?" don't worry, you'll learn to love it when Java is replaced <:o)


    Say C# is an improvement on Java is damning with faint praise.

    As for the language I'll be using in the future, I already know what it will be called. I'm just waiting for Paul Graham to finish designing the damn thing.
  • adron (unregistered) in reply to

    A diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. The BEST candidates I have hired, and the BEST programmers I have seen are the BEST because of personal interest, some do and some do not have diplomas. It is, ingerently worthless - it only means that one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the "schooling system".

  • (cs) in reply to adron
    Anonymous:
    A diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. The BEST candidates I have hired, and the BEST programmers I have seen are the BEST because of personal interest, some do and some do not have diplomas. It is, ingerently worthless - it only means that one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the "schooling system".


    Gee, let me think - one person spent four years interacting with Knuth and another read Programming for Dummies. Who's got the better background?

    Anonymous, you're not bright.
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:
    Anonymous:
    A diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. The BEST candidates I have hired, and the BEST programmers I have seen are the BEST because of personal interest, some do and some do not have diplomas. It is, ingerently worthless - it only means that one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the "schooling system".


    Gee, let me think - one person spent four years interacting with Knuth and another read Programming for Dummies. Who's got the better background?

    Anonymous, you're not bright.


    That's a bit elitist, isn't it?

    How about this: One spent 4 years twiddling away at a state university, because he or she heard programming was "the field" to get into, while the other learned programming while still in middle school purely out of interest, graduated high-school, then spent 4 years learning and applying practical business programming skills while on the job. Who's got the better background, then?
  • (cs) in reply to Mike R
    Mike R:
    Richard Nixon:
    Anonymous:
    A diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. The BEST candidates I have hired, and the BEST programmers I have seen are the BEST because of personal interest, some do and some do not have diplomas. It is, ingerently worthless - it only means that one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the "schooling system".


    Gee, let me think - one person spent four years interacting with Knuth and another read Programming for Dummies. Who's got the better background?

    Anonymous, you're not bright.


    That's a bit elitist, isn't it?

    How about this: One spent 4 years twiddling away at a state university, because he or she heard programming was "the field" to get into, while the other learned programming while still in middle school purely out of interest, graduated high-school, then spent 4 years learning and applying practical business programming skills while on the job. Who's got the better background, then?


    Oh, and Knuth (not the Doctor himself, but his work) is available for purchase (The Art of Computer Programming) and download (innumerable papers) even to those who haven't graduated high school. If you've learned how to sum a series, there's no math in there you can't grasp (you certainly don't need to be able to follow Finite Semifields and Projective Planes, though a degree isn't required for that either) and you only need a logical bent to cover the rest. Interest, ability and the willingness to learn will get anyone a hell of a lot farther than a sheepskin and a gentleman's C.
  • (cs) in reply to Mark Pitman
    Anonymous:
    At a previous job a number of years ago, we would give candidates a simple SQL quiz to see if they had ANY experience doing database work or if they were simply web designers who could spell A-S-P. The quiz had two tables, State and City. There was a one to many foreign key relationship between them. One of the questions was, "How would you get a list of all the cities in Arizona?" One candidate began writing a list of names of different cities in Arizona instead of writing the query :)


    That is an easy question. Assuming your states table has ID and name columns and the cities table has ID, name, and state columns, the query is:

    select cities.name from cities, states where cities.state = states.id and states.name = 'Arizona';
  • Donald Hughes (unregistered) in reply to adron

    Anonymous:
    A diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. The BEST candidates I have hired, and the BEST programmers I have seen are the BEST because of personal interest, some do and some do not have diplomas. It is, ingerently worthless - it only means that one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the "schooling system".

    You're definitely one of those who didn't finish college (or go at all).  I would agree that the BEST programmers have a large amount of personal interest in programming.  But I would say that the BEST of the BEST have a great personal interest AND a college degree.  The programmers I've worked with who did not have a degree were always more likely to leave work unfinished, more likely to hit a wall they couldn't get around, and less capable of expressing themselves lucidly in written word.  They lack discipline, proficiency in math, and tend to choose simple, incomplete, fast solutions over formalized, complete ones.

    For anyone thinking of not going to college or completing their degree - don't do it.  Get your degree.  It will be hard, but worth it.  You'll never have to feel inferior in the workplace, you'll never have to hit a glass ceiling, and it will make you a stronger programmer.

  • Donald Hughes (unregistered)

    A previous director of mine was interviewing for a new developer position.  He had no technical background.  One resume came in, and he was so impressed with it that he felt a technical interview was unnecessary.  The resume spelled out an active career of expertise in everything from C++ to CORBA.  So he hired this guy.  But it seems that he took someone else's resume and used it as his own, because he knew nothing.  Soon after this guy was hired, I was asked to show this guy around a few of our databases.  It was obvious within a few short minutes that guy was clueless because not only did he not have the answers, he didn't even know the questions.  He didn't have any mental framework for understanding any of what I was telling him.  But the truly awful part of this story is that this guy lasted more than 6 months in this position.  Magically, he got very little done during the day (although he did have his hotmail up a lot), but managed to produce nearly all of his code at night and on the weekends.  My assumption is that he had a friend helping him out.  So this guy was given an amazing opportunity to "get into the biz", but he ended up squandering it.  In more than 6 months he did not learn anything.  Through the years, I have seen completely non-technical people learn SQL to a proficient degree in that amount of time.  The only thing that brought his career to an end was a series of layoffs.

  • (cs) in reply to Donald Hughes
    Anonymous:

    The resume spelled out an active career of expertise in everything from C++ to CORBA.



    So the guy only had "expertise" in a small set of computer-related technologies that begin with the letter C? I don't mind people copying their resume skill section from the glossary of a Dummies-series book, but they should at least show enough initiative to turn the occasional page....
  • (cs) in reply to Mike R
    Mike R:
    Richard Nixon:
    Anonymous:
    A diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. The BEST candidates I have hired, and the BEST programmers I have seen are the BEST because of personal interest, some do and some do not have diplomas. It is, ingerently worthless - it only means that one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the "schooling system".


    Gee, let me think - one person spent four years interacting with Knuth and another read Programming for Dummies. Who's got the better background?

    Anonymous, you're not bright.


    That's a bit elitist, isn't it?

    How about this: One spent 4 years twiddling away at a state university, because he or she heard programming was "the field" to get into, while the other learned programming while still in middle school purely out of interest, graduated high-school, then spent 4 years learning and applying practical business programming skills while on the job. Who's got the better background, then?


    So you believe that the only things a college degree signifies "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system"?

    Statistically speaking, someone with a college degree is more likely to be qualified for a position than someone without a college degree. I think it's sickening that people believe that the two items mentioned above are the only thing a person can get out of a college. I will tell that you that I got quite a bit more out of my Bachelor's and Master's studies than that.

  • (cs) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    Oh, and Knuth (not the Doctor himself, but his work) is available for purchase (The Art of Computer Programming) and download (innumerable papers) even to those who haven't graduated high school. If you've learned how to sum a series, there's no math in there you can't grasp (you certainly don't need to be able to follow Finite Semifields and Projective Planes, though a degree isn't required for that either) and you only need a logical bent to cover the rest. Interest, ability and the willingness to learn will get anyone a hell of a lot farther than a sheepskin and a gentleman's C.


    So you believe that a college degree merely signifies that "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system" and nothing more?
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    Oh, and Knuth (not the Doctor himself, but his work) is available for purchase (The Art of Computer Programming) and download (innumerable papers) even to those who haven't graduated high school. If you've learned how to sum a series, there's no math in there you can't grasp (you certainly don't need to be able to follow Finite Semifields and Projective Planes, though a degree isn't required for that either) and you only need a logical bent to cover the rest. Interest, ability and the willingness to learn will get anyone a hell of a lot farther than a sheepskin and a gentleman's C.


    So you believe that a college degree merely signifies that "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system" and nothing more?


    Not necessarily, no -- but it is not necessarily an indication of competence (or the potential to achieve competence) either. The "best of the best" don't need four years to learn what's there (they tend to intuit much of the information once they are introduced to the problems being addressed), and it is far from impossible to stick out the four years and get the placemat without actually "getting it".

    I've worked with both grads and the self-taught, and I can tell you with some certainty that there is genius and stupidity in both camps. Unfortunately, stupidity is more prevalent than genius in both.
  • mwtb (unregistered) in reply to Mike

    I'm also in the UK, and also entirely confused by the recruitment situation in IT worldwide.

    I've been involved in hiring processes and it is amazing how bad many candidates are. More to the point, it's amazing that most of them seem to get jobs being paid the same as Joe Competent and I can only assume that this is simply because organisations really are desperate for IT skills.

    However, there is another side to this, which is that despite these concerns, most companies still insist on candidates being expressly and specifically experienced in pretty narrow fields. Take C# here. I've never coded any C#. However, I have some light database experience, significant C, C++ and Java exposure, along with plenty of casual tinkering with the likes of Ruby and Python. If someone was dying to get hold of a C# coder, then you'd imagine that they'd be sensible enough to consider that someone with my background would have little trouble transferring my skills. Indeed, the technical learning curve would probably be far easier than picking up the domain knowledge. Of course they don't, so good people don't apply for the jobs that ask for experience they don't have and you get a bucket load of con-artists who fill their CV with buzz-word technologies that they barely understand because they know that it will get them an interview.

    These attitudes are destroying whatever minimally positive professional reputation IT might have had and they are damaging job prospects and mobility for genuinely skilled people because they simply get swallowed up in the waves of mediocre candidates that really have no business being categorised as part of the same labour market.

  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:


    So you believe that the only things a college degree signifies "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system"?


    For some, yes. I've had the misfortune of running into several college educated people that didn't have the skills to code their way out of a wet paper bag. Then again, I've run into some people whose degree was well worth it. I don't necessarily think a degree is required, but can be good. FWIW, I didn't finish college, but would love to complete it, I just happened to find a job in the meantime (yeah, I know...) and took the "work experience" route. ( ... )


    Statistically speaking, someone with a college degree is more likely to be qualified for a position than someone without a college degree. I think it's sickening that people believe that the two items mentioned above are the only thing a person can get out of a college. I will tell that you that I got quite a bit more out of my Bachelor's and Master's studies than that.


    Someone may have the education, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have the ability.
  • (cs) in reply to Mike R
    Mike R:
    Richard Nixon:


    So you believe that the only things a college degree signifies "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system"?


    For some, yes. I've had the misfortune of running into several college educated people that didn't have the skills to code their way out of a wet paper bag. Then again, I've run into some people whose degree was well worth it. I don't necessarily think a degree is required, but can be good. FWIW, I didn't finish college, but would love to complete it, I just happened to find a job in the meantime (yeah, I know...) and took the "work experience" route. ( ... )


    Statistically speaking, someone with a college degree is more likely to be qualified for a position than someone without a college degree. I think it's sickening that people believe that the two items mentioned above are the only thing a person can get out of a college. I will tell that you that I got quite a bit more out of my Bachelor's and Master's studies than that.


    Someone may have the education, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have the ability.


    And you are a professional? The statement that I originally replied to was not "some people only get blah blah blah from college" - the statement was that that was all people could get out of college. So when you start out your reply by saying, "for some, yes" it shows to me that you don't understand the most basic of set theory.

    College degrees mean something. To say that all holders of college degrees have only learned the nonsense suggested by the person you are defending is just sad.
  • (cs) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    Oh, and Knuth (not the Doctor himself, but his work) is available for purchase (The Art of Computer Programming) and download (innumerable papers) even to those who haven't graduated high school. If you've learned how to sum a series, there's no math in there you can't grasp (you certainly don't need to be able to follow Finite Semifields and Projective Planes, though a degree isn't required for that either) and you only need a logical bent to cover the rest. Interest, ability and the willingness to learn will get anyone a hell of a lot farther than a sheepskin and a gentleman's C.


    So you believe that a college degree merely signifies that "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system" and nothing more?


    Not necessarily, no -- but it is not necessarily an indication of competence (or the potential to achieve competence) either. The "best of the best" don't need four years to learn what's there (they tend to intuit much of the information once they are introduced to the problems being addressed), and it is far from impossible to stick out the four years and get the placemat without actually "getting it".

    I've worked with both grads and the self-taught, and I can tell you with some certainty that there is genius and stupidity in both camps. Unfortunately, stupidity is more prevalent than genius in both.


    But the person I was replying to [and you interjected against my point in reply to his, so I have to assume you agree with him] was making that very same claim that a college degree signifies that [again, I will quote this stupidity], "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system."

    Have you taken any graduate classes?
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon

    Richard Nixon:
    I will tell that you that I got quite a bit more out of my Bachelor's and Master's studies than that.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>...like, braggadocio!</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset

    Braggawhat?

  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon

    Richard Nixon:
    And you are a professional? The statement that I originally replied to was not "some people only get blah blah blah from college" - the statement was that that was all people could get out of college. So when you start out your reply by saying, "for some, yes" it shows to me that you don't understand the most basic of set theory.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>or that he was directly replying to the statement as you presented it.</FONT>

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>and every good logician also begins a claim with "statistically speaking".  that just about disqualifies you from the round.</FONT>

    Richard Nixon:
    College degrees mean something. To say that all holders of college degrees have only learned the nonsense suggested by the person you are defending is just sad.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>too bad that wasn't what he was saying at all.  i find it hard to believe you hold a master's degree.  the last time i encountered this kind of pedantic elitism was in high school.  those kids ran off to their caltechs and harvards, failed out, and then finished out with a two-year degree in business administration or telecommunications at the podunk community college.</FONT>

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>"college degrees mean something" - feeling insecure about your own abilities?  is that why you pushed to get a masters?  is that why you're compelled to tell us about it?</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon

    Richard Nixon:

    Have you taken any graduate classes?

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>what that has to do with anything?</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">or that he was directly replying to the statement as you presented it.</font>

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">and every good logician also begins a claim with "statistically speaking".  that just about disqualifies you from the round.</font>


    <font face="Courier New" size="2">too bad that wasn't what he was saying at all.  i find it hard to believe you hold a master's degree.  the last time i encountered this kind of pedantic elitism was in high school.  those kids ran off to their caltechs and harvards, failed out, and then finished out with a two-year degree in business administration or telecommunications at the podunk community college.</font>

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">"college degrees mean something" - feeling insecure about your own abilities?  is that why you pushed to get a masters?  is that why you're compelled to tell us about it?</font>



    A logician would know to follow from the start of any series of logical statements - not from just the most recent.

    I'm glad you doubt me. I don't really care. The only reason I mention my education is because I saw so many posts by those without college degrees claiming how superior they are to those with college degrees. My point was never to say that a person with a college degree > a person without a college degree; it was to point out that many people work hard for their degrees and get a great deal out of them. I apologize if I did not make this point clearly enough.

    I am not insecure. See above.
  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    Richard Nixon:

    Have you taken any graduate classes?

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">what that has to do with anything?</font>




    The person that was making the claim that the best of the best don't need 4 years seemed to be implying that you get everything you need to know occurs early on in a degree. I'm sorry that you could not follow that thread without my help.
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    Oh, and Knuth (not the Doctor himself, but his work) is available for purchase (The Art of Computer Programming) and download (innumerable papers) even to those who haven't graduated high school. If you've learned how to sum a series, there's no math in there you can't grasp (you certainly don't need to be able to follow Finite Semifields and Projective Planes, though a degree isn't required for that either) and you only need a logical bent to cover the rest. Interest, ability and the willingness to learn will get anyone a hell of a lot farther than a sheepskin and a gentleman's C.


    So you believe that a college degree merely signifies that "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system" and nothing more?


    Not necessarily, no -- but it is not necessarily an indication of competence (or the potential to achieve competence) either. The "best of the best" don't need four years to learn what's there (they tend to intuit much of the information once they are introduced to the problems being addressed), and it is far from impossible to stick out the four years and get the placemat without actually "getting it".

    I've worked with both grads and the self-taught, and I can tell you with some certainty that there is genius and stupidity in both camps. Unfortunately, stupidity is more prevalent than genius in both.


    But the person I was replying to [and you interjected against my point in reply to his, so I have to assume you agree with him] was making that very same claim that a college degree signifies that [again, I will quote this stupidity], "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system."

    Have you taken any graduate classes?


    Taught them. And you know what? I never actually graduated high school (at least not at the uni-prep level -- the jurisdiction I grew up in had two distinct HS diplomas). I never much cared for reading things into Shakespeare that he didn't actually write, nor was I looking forward to actuarial studies (towards which all of my scholarships pointed) . I earned my credentials in the field, primarily in defence of my country.

    So, yes, a degree can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be proof of nothing more than four years attendance and a minimal passing grade. If your studies halped you, cool -- I won't belittle your experience. But think back to your time at school. Can you not think of a name or two or three that makes you shudder at the thought of working with them?
  • (cs) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    Taught them. And you know what? I never actually graduated high school (at least not at the uni-prep level -- the jurisdiction I grew up in had two distinct HS diplomas). I never much cared for reading things into Shakespeare that he didn't actually write, nor was I looking forward to actuarial studies (towards which all of my scholarships pointed) . I earned my credentials in the field, primarily in defence of my country.

    So, yes, a degree can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be proof of nothing more than four years attendance and a minimal passing grade. If your studies halped you, cool -- I won't belittle your experience. But think back to your time at school. Can you not think of a name or two or three that makes you shudder at the thought of working with them?



    I agree with you completely. My whole point was that it was being stated in this thread that a college degree meant absolutely nothing. Certainly there is the possibility that someone might coast their way to a college degree [obviously depending upon the school] but there is also the possibility that someone got a great deal out of their degree. That was my point.
  • Steve (unregistered) in reply to Avner Kashtan

    I was hired b/c I told the interviewer that I don't used datasets/adapters. :)

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to dmitriy

    dmitriy:
    Anonymous:
    At a previous job a number of years ago, we would give candidates a simple SQL quiz to see if they had ANY experience doing database work or if they were simply web designers who could spell A-S-P. The quiz had two tables, State and City. There was a one to many foreign key relationship between them. One of the questions was, "How would you get a list of all the cities in Arizona?" One candidate began writing a list of names of different cities in Arizona instead of writing the query :)


    That is an easy question. Assuming your states table has ID and name columns and the cities table has ID, name, and state columns, the query is:

    select cities.name from cities, states where cities.state = states.id and states.name = 'Arizona';

    Why do you need to join when the cities table has state in it??

  • qiguai (unregistered) in reply to mwtb
    Anonymous:
    I'm also in the UK, and also entirely confused by the recruitment situation in IT worldwide.

    I've been involved in hiring processes and it is amazing how bad many candidates are. More to the point, it's amazing that most of them seem to get jobs being paid the same as Joe Competent and I can only assume that this is simply because organisations really are desperate for IT skills.


    No, it's because very few organizations are capable of distinguishing good candidates from bad candidates, and very few organizations understand that even competent programmers are worth much more than incompetents.

    Anonymous:
    However, there is another side to this, which is that despite these concerns, most companies still insist on candidates being expressly and specifically experienced in pretty narrow fields. Take C# here. I've never coded any C#. However, I have some light database experience, significant C, C++ and Java exposure, along with plenty of casual tinkering with the likes of Ruby and Python. If someone was dying to get hold of a C# coder, then you'd imagine that they'd be sensible enough to consider that someone with my background would have little trouble transferring my skills. Indeed, the technical learning curve would probably be far easier than picking up the domain knowledge. Of course they don't, so good people don't apply for the jobs that ask for experience they don't have and you get a bucket load of con-artists who fill their CV with buzz-word technologies that they barely understand because they know that it will get them an interview.


    Yes. If you hire a contractor for a 3 week job, you need to be sure that they know the systems involved thoroughly, _and_ that they are competent. When hiring a programmer it is more important that they be smart, and  have strong analytical skills.

    Anonymous:
    These attitudes are destroying whatever minimally positive professional reputation IT might have had and they are damaging job prospects and mobility for genuinely skilled people because they simply get swallowed up in the waves of mediocre candidates that really have no business being categorised as part of the same labour market.


    I agree. For people arguing degree vs no degree, I'd say that it doesn't matter if the skills are there, but that people who have never been exposed to academic requirements are less likely to be good programmers. I never finished my undergrad degree, but I spent the last two years of my undergrad career tutoring grad students, and finished all of the requirements for a CS major at a top 15 program (I refused to take the GenEds, and so far I've managed- I do regret not finishing the degree though).

    I also had a roommate, when I was a sophomore, who was graduating with a CS degree and a 4.0- this program was not known for handing out four points, but he was very conscientious. I asked him something about functional languages, shortly before his graduation date, and he said something like "well, in C...". I interrupted him: "No, I mean in functional languages". He said- "Well, C is a functional language... it's based on functions, isn't it?" So I'm not sure that a degree, even from a really good program, means that much.

    I will say this- if you don't understand, say, Kolmogorov complexity, you have no business charging people for your services as a programmer. If you do, and you can't write decent code- shame, shame, shame...

    We need a lot of awful programmers to clean up the mistakes of... a lot of awful programmers. Ponzi, anyone?
  • qiguai (unregistered) in reply to qiguai

    errm- I mean, "it doesn't matter, if the skills are there", rather than "it doesn't matter if the skills are there".

  • atomicfroman (unregistered) in reply to Chris Tavares

    ROFLMAO!!!!

  • zorro (unregistered) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    Oh, and Knuth (not the Doctor himself, but his work) is available for purchase (The Art of Computer Programming) and download (innumerable papers) even to those who haven't graduated high school. If you've learned how to sum a series, there's no math in there you can't grasp (you certainly don't need to be able to follow Finite Semifields and Projective Planes, though a degree isn't required for that either) and you only need a logical bent to cover the rest. Interest, ability and the willingness to learn will get anyone a hell of a lot farther than a sheepskin and a gentleman's C.


    So you believe that a college degree merely signifies that "one can spend lots of money to be abused for 4+ years to learn how to deal with the schooling system" and nothing more?


    Not necessarily, no -- but it is not necessarily an indication of competence (or the potential to achieve competence) either. The "best of the best" don't need four years to learn what's there (they tend to intuit much of the information once they are introduced to the problems being addressed), and it is far from impossible to stick out the four years and get the placemat without actually "getting it".

    I've worked with both grads and the self-taught, and I can tell you with some certainty that there is genius and stupidity in both camps. Unfortunately, stupidity is more prevalent than genius in both.
    You don't need four years to learn what's there? I think we disagree on what's there!!! Sure, if you mean learn Java and sql enough to spit out webpages 4 years is too long. There's a WORLD of things you learn in college if you put the energy into it. I do hope you realize that.
  • (cs) in reply to zorro
    Anonymous:
    Stan Rogers:


    Not necessarily, no -- but it is not necessarily an indication of competence (or the potential to achieve competence) either. The "best of the best" don't need four years to learn what's there (they tend to intuit much of the information once they are introduced to the problems being addressed), and it is far from impossible to stick out the four years and get the placemat without actually "getting it".


    You don't need four years to learn what's there? I think we disagree on what's there!!! Sure, if you mean learn Java and sql enough to spit out webpages 4 years is too long. There's a WORLD of things you learn in college if you put the energy into it. I do hope you realize that.


    Yes, and I also realise that there is no time constraint on learning what there is to learn. Java, SQL, and even the web pages they'll spit out are specific applications of knowledge -- none of them are at the "class of problem" level, although they may be used to demonstrate a class of problem to be solved. None of these specific applications are what a CS student (or a programmer on the ground) should actually be striving to learn (although knowing some language's syntax is a sine qua non for practically applying the more important bits).

    The more fundamental knowledge required is not on the order of grammar and syntax of particular languages, rather it is more akin to realising, when asked to add the natural numbers 1 to 100, that 1+100, 2+99, 3+98, ..., 50+51 all return the same result, so that 50 *101 is the answer. Some people will see this immediately and intuit its application across an entire class of problem, some need to have it pointed out before they can see it at all, and some still can't actually see it, but will take the professor's word for it after seeing the result work over and over again, and dutifully record the formula somewhere.

    The whole concept of the four-year degree is that it will take a person with a certain minimum aptitude and a certain minimum amount of diligence a certain length of time to accumulate a certain minimum amount of knowledge. They don't change the books or the rules to challenge people with exceptionally high aptitude and interest, nor do the fundamental principles change a whole lot along the way. A high performer could certainly learn what is there in far less time than the folks in the middle of the curve, and learn it to a much greater depth.
  • (cs) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    The whole concept of the four-year degree is that it will take a person with a certain minimum aptitude and a certain minimum amount of diligence a certain length of time to accumulate a certain minimum amount of knowledge. They don't change the books or the rules to challenge people with exceptionally high aptitude and interest, nor do the fundamental principles change a whole lot along the way. A high performer could certainly learn what is there in far less time than the folks in the middle of the curve, and learn it to a much greater depth.


    What college did you go to? Not being challenged? What is to stop someone from taking more classes? Bonus points - taking classes outside of the field of study.
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    The whole concept of the four-year degree is that it will take a person with a certain minimum aptitude and a certain minimum amount of diligence a certain length of time to accumulate a certain minimum amount of knowledge. They don't change the books or the rules to challenge people with exceptionally high aptitude and interest, nor do the fundamental principles change a whole lot along the way. A high performer could certainly learn what is there in far less time than the folks in the middle of the curve, and learn it to a much greater depth.


    What college did you go to? Not being challenged? What is to stop someone from taking more classes? Bonus points - taking classes outside of the field of study.


    Do you not keep track of things you've already read?
  • (cs) in reply to qiguai
    I will say this- if you don't understand, say, Kolmogorov complexity, you have no business charging people for your services as a programmer.


    Absolutely. It always bothered me that fuckung plumbers are charging so much money - even if they never attended classes on fluid dynamics.
  • (cs) in reply to dreifus

    Fucking plumbers of course.

  • (cs) in reply to dreifus
    dreifus:
    I will say this- if you don't understand, say, Kolmogorov complexity, you have no business charging people for your services as a programmer.


    Absolutely. It always bothered me that fuckung plumbers are charging so much money - even if they never attended classes on fluid dynamics.


    I give them a quiz when they show up at my house. I may be knee-deep in waste but I'll be damned if I'm going to let a plumber who can't pass my quiz into my home.
  • (cs) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    Richard Nixon:
    Stan Rogers:
    The whole concept of the four-year degree is that it will take a person with a certain minimum aptitude and a certain minimum amount of diligence a certain length of time to accumulate a certain minimum amount of knowledge. They don't change the books or the rules to challenge people with exceptionally high aptitude and interest, nor do the fundamental principles change a whole lot along the way. A high performer could certainly learn what is there in far less time than the folks in the middle of the curve, and learn it to a much greater depth.


    What college did you go to? Not being challenged? What is to stop someone from taking more classes? Bonus points - taking classes outside of the field of study.


    Do you not keep track of things you've already read?



    On this forum - no.
    You didn't explain to me why someone who is better than average cannot be challenged in college by taking more classes or bringing this up with a professor, who can find a course of independent study.
  • (cs) in reply to Stan Rogers
    Stan Rogers:
    Anonymous:
    Stan Rogers:


    Not necessarily, no -- but it is not necessarily an indication of competence (or the potential to achieve competence) either. The "best of the best" don't need four years to learn what's there (they tend to intuit much of the information once they are introduced to the problems being addressed), and it is far from impossible to stick out the four years and get the placemat without actually "getting it".


    You don't need four years to learn what's there? I think we disagree on what's there!!! Sure, if you mean learn Java and sql enough to spit out webpages 4 years is too long. There's a WORLD of things you learn in college if you put the energy into it. I do hope you realize that.


    Yes, and I also realise that there is no time constraint on learning what there is to learn. Java, SQL, and even the web pages they'll spit out are specific applications of knowledge -- none of them are at the "class of problem" level, although they may be used to demonstrate a class of problem to be solved. None of these specific applications are what a CS student (or a programmer on the ground) should actually be striving to learn (although knowing some language's syntax is a sine qua non for practically applying the more important bits).

    The more fundamental knowledge required is not on the order of grammar and syntax of particular languages, rather it is more akin to realising, when asked to add the natural numbers 1 to 100, that 1+100, 2+99, 3+98, ..., 50+51 all return the same result, so that 50 *101 is the answer. Some people will see this immediately and intuit its application across an entire class of problem, some need to have it pointed out before they can see it at all, and some still can't actually see it, but will take the professor's word for it after seeing the result work over and over again, and dutifully record the formula somewhere.

    The whole concept of the four-year degree is that it will take a person with a certain minimum aptitude and a certain minimum amount of diligence a certain length of time to accumulate a certain minimum amount of knowledge. They don't change the books or the rules to challenge people with exceptionally high aptitude and interest, nor do the fundamental principles change a whole lot along the way. A high performer could certainly learn what is there in far less time than the folks in the middle of the curve, and learn it to a much greater depth.



    I enjoy how someone who didn't attend college is such an expert on what a lack of challenge there is at a college.

    I know I always sit on the sidelines of a track meet and say how easy it is to hop over those hurdles.
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:

    I enjoy how someone who didn't attend college is such an expert on what a lack of challenge there is at a college.

    I know I always sit on the sidelines of a track meet and say how easy it is to hop over those hurdles.


    Judging by your recent posts, I would have to say you have a pretty high opinion of yourself. You seem to come off as condescending and superior to everyone on these forums.

    Nothing wrong with good self esteem, but when you have grandiose opinions of yourself, it may be time to seek advice.

Leave a comment on “5 years C-pound experience”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article