|
Sander Rossel wrote: So you're building a C# application, who would you rather hire? A C# specialist or someone who'll "learn on the fly"?
Read the survey question again:
Which traits are important if you wish to be a developer?
Your point is far more specific. If you wish to be a developer in general, knowledge of a single discipline is not critical. Nearly everything else on the list is more important, especially learning ability (to learn new disciplines) and communication. I place communication higher in the list as we don't necessarily learn new things every day, but we do communicate within the team, with business partners, with customers, with vendors -- every day. The ability to communicate effectively is a far more useful trait.
Regarding your question, quoted above, my answer is "it depends". I would want at least one C# specialist on the team, but depending on the situation I will want someone with general, wide ranging skills. It also matters if I'm hiring specifically to develop a single application, or if I have needs beyond that application.
If I had to answer blindly for a general situation, would I hire a C# expert whose focus is in that one skill, or a person who is pretty good at C# but has wide ranging skills? I'd hire #2, as I have more confidence that they can learn to handle my future needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: First you need knowledge and skill in a specific technology, or you won't be able to do anything (why wasn't that rated 5 out of 5 by everyone)?
On the contrary - my 'stock in trade' is creating the most generic possible solution for a problem and making in very robust.
The key in all of this is abstraction of a problem: most of the details of a specific technology are just accessorizing.
A solution targeted for a specific technology will be difficult or impossible to expand beyond it - and if, on the other hand, it's supremely extensible then the specific knowledge wasn't the key at all.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You can only implement generic solutions once you have intimate knowledge of a technology.
If you're using C# you're going to need interfaces, base classes, generics, certain base classes, choose the best framework.
If you're using JavaScript you'll better know about prototype, constructor functions, scope, lots of libraries, your package manager etc.
I've never seen someone build robust, extendable, and readable applications in a technology they weren't familiar with.
|
|
|
|
|
We’re talking at cross purposes as to the meaning of ‘technology’ – I am not considering the language utilization as technology. That’s methodology. A problem can be solved by many routes with many languages. My view of technology was that it referred to the actual ‘mechanical’ problem (mechanical used rather loosely).
I honestly don’t know how much of the business works where I work – and my applications are running half the place. They just don’t care, when they do their job, about what it is. I freely admit to them that there are many more technically proficient programmers out there (your meaning of technically) – but not mean who can solve problems as efficiently.
From your perspective, I would certainly admit that I couldn’t write much of a book in Pashto without familiarity with the language. But the books conception is independent of how much of the language I know – just as long as I know enough to express my meaning.
Since our semantics differ, we’re neither in any particular agreement or disagreement.
It goes like this: Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, your meaning of technology is pretty much my-meaning-of-technology-agnostic.
I agree that being able to see the big picture is very important, without any programming language or framework in mind.
I've seen code like if (car.Type == "Volvo") {} else if (car.Type == "BMW") {} else if (car.Type ==... Clearly the programmer is missing some bigger picture!
That's pretty language agnostic, but you should still be able to implement it in the language you're using 
|
|
|
|
|
Yet I'm beginning to think my new boss doesn't want creative and curious developers. 
|
|
|
|
|
The worst code I've seen was "creative" code.
We have best practices for a reason, don't go and make something up.
Only a few very intelligent people (who know all about the "rules") can write creative code and get away with it.
Curiosity is nice, but a razor sharp focus and the ability to become really good in at least one language/framework is far more important.
After all, curiosity killed the cat 
|
|
|
|
|
Creativity is fundamental when working in high technology enviroments - which most business and web environments are not. Creating algorithms is not a question of "best practices" (although there are mathematical and computational properties to be kept firmly in mind) but of creativity. Linking together different algorithms to perform complex operations in set time constraints - there is no best practice there, only unexplored wasteland.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
If a coffee bean is between the Earth and the Sun, is it a Java Eclipse? -- Sascha Lefèvre
/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
I find it sad that knowing frameworks is more important than having good ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Frameworks come and go. A good brain is there to stay*.
* If properly maintained.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
If a coffee bean is between the Earth and the Sun, is it a Java Eclipse? -- Sascha Lefèvre
/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
I call that knowing the basics.
I know OOP, that's not creative, it's also not a language or a framework, it's basic knowledge.
Knowing basic concepts make it easier to use new languages and frameworks as they come and go, but at the end of the day you need to know one or two to create an application.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but how many developers need to think of good ideas?
Other people think of good ideas, CEO's have ideas, managers have ideas, customers have ideas, consumers have ideas.
Programmers implement ideas. Using technology. Which they should know intimately (or you'll get some bad implementations).
And even IF a programmer has a good idea (a programmer once though the world needed Linux, which turned out to be a pretty good idea) he needs the technical skills to make it reality.
And technical skills come down to, yes, knowing a language and probably one or two frameworks.
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, you've limited the concept of creativity to the least important aspect for a programmer: coding (as in style).
Creativity has to do with coming up with solutions - it is part and parcel to problem solving. Indeed, inseparable from it.
Without these I'd be quite unemployed by now.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Most solutions boil down to what has been done before.
Imagine having to re-invent the wheel every time!
Every time I've seen programmers get creative there was a (better) out-of-the-box solution already available.
For the record, I don't see implementing some pattern, applying some algorithm, or using some framework as creative. That's simply doing my job.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Sander in that creativity is often misplaced in development. Every now and again there just isn't an out-of-the-box solution and that's when the light-bulbs need to go on, but it certainly isn't a day-to-day requirement.
Is creativity an important attribute in a developer? Not really, I think it's certainly possible to be a damned good developer without having a single creative bone in your body.
Really speaking, what we do is craft not art and I'd put it somewhere in the "1% inspiration/99% perspiration" ball-park.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Is creativity an important attribute in a developer programmer / coder? Not really
FTFY
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Every time I've seen programmers get creative there was a (better) out-of-the-box solution already available.
And that is the difference between a programmer and a developer.
I, as the senior developer get to be creative around the code we use however I continuously encourage team members to input into that framework. Without the creativity and imagination of all the team members we would be in a sorry state.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Serious question: Would you describe the .NET platform and its libraries as creative? Why (not)?
|
|
|
|
|
Totally. A messed up mangled labyrinth which incorporates both the dll hell and the jar hell with namespaces split in a idiotic number of packages, with no clear documentation (no, telling what the members are and what parameters they do accept is not documentation, it is code. What the members are supposed to DO with my inputs? What output should I expect? What meaning have those properties do?) and duplicate functionalities under different namespaces with incompatible data objects.
That's as creative as "modern art" goes, because it is not an engineered structure for sure.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
If a coffee bean is between the Earth and the Sun, is it a Java Eclipse? -- Sascha Lefèvre
/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
Not now, it has become engineering, refinement and kludge. The initial concepts and putting it together took imagination and creativity sure. I've seen the framework USED creatively but the framework itself, not any more.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: The initial concepts and putting it together took imagination and creativity sure
That's where we think different.
Someone had a (maybe somewhat creative) idea, let's create a new programming language that gets compiled to IL which can then, in theory, run on any platform our very own Java.
And from that point of view people started designing, according to a set of rules, and coding, according to specs.
People probably didn't follow all design guides and made some exceptions to common rules, but that's not yet creative.
Making the decision whether a value is passed as a parameter to a constructor, a method, or set as a property, is not creative. It's simply making a choice between a few well known alternatives. And that's how programming usually goes. At least the programming I've seen so far.
The creative part is WHAT to make, not HOW to make it.
And the WHAT isn't decided by programmers, developers, architects, or whatever you call them, it's decided by individuals, CEO's and managers and customers (and of course a programmer once in a while too).
At least that's how I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The creative part is WHAT to make, not HOW to make it.
Hmm you may be right, I have always had a problem with what! The best I can manage is getting creative about how, but then you and peejay would call that craft. I will happily work with someone who can supply the what and be a bloody good craftsman 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: you and peejay would call that craft
Exactly 
I must admit it's hard to say what creativity is and isn't.
Take a writer, like a programmer a writer has a set of rules (the HOW) that are probably even stricter than that of a programmer, rules of syntax, spelling, grammar, lexicology...
Unlike a programmer a writer is creative because he's making up the WHAT to write.
A (fiction) book, contrary to an application, never solves a problem so the mind can roam free on the WHAT which makes it creative.
So now you understand when I say code should (almost) never be creative, it obscures the WHAT it's supposed to solve by introducing a new, temporary WHAT
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: And that is the difference between a programmer and a developer.
I'm not so sure. I'm a lead developer and I design systems from the bottom up so I certainly wouldn't label myself as a programmer. I'd consider myself to be a creative person in general terms (I write, I make music, I cook and all the rest of it) but I see my professional role as being primarily that of an artisan rather than an artist.
Perhaps this perception is coloured by what I do - I've always worked on business systems and I'm back-end biased. If I'm designing a database, I'm generally working to a specified level of normalisation. If I'm writing a DAL, the requirement is very much for a robust and flexible DAL not something that will boldly go where no DAL has gone before. If I'm working on business logic, the prime directive is to adhere to the real-world business logic - there is no room at all for creativity in that, people can end-up going to jail for being creative with their accountancy. When I do work at the UI end of things, my customers expect a standard Microsoft look and feel.
In other areas of development (digital marketing springs to mind), creativity obviously has a bit more of a place and maybe that's where we should draw the distinction.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
