Programmers for Scientific Research?

An AC submits: "We have recently had a lot of trouble trying to hire competent programmers for a research project. We are not programmers, so it is somewhat difficult to evaluate the competence of CS graduates. However, it seems that many of them are quite business oriented and that is not what we are looking for. On the other hand, the ones with adequate math skills etc. are often interested only in 'pure' CS. We would desperately need some kind of 'all-around lab hackers' capable of scientific problem solving, and confortable working with all sorts of software and hardware, but have not been able to find such persons. Does the Slashdot audience have any suggestions of how to attract the hackers having 'by programmers for scientists' - attitude?" [Update: 03/24 09:24 AM by michael : Note that although my email address is the only one on this submission, I'm not the one looking for programmers - I work for slashdot (although I used to program for a DOE laboratory, and that's why I found this question interesting and posted it). I've received a bunch of misdirected emails from people who thought this was interesting work, so if the submitter is reading this story, he/she might want to put contact information in a comment below.]

Comments

Skill != degree

[FallLine]

CS degreed geeks are certified geeks! CS degreed geeks are assumed to have intimate knowledge of computers at every level of detail; down to where the Physicists and Material Scientists take over.

Oh please. I've known CS grads from tons of schools, "certified" or not, they vary from mediocre, to ok, to excellent, to merely acceptable. To put it simply, the skills, abilities, and knowledge that are "tested" in CS (same can be said for engineering and many ohters) programs are often quite different from what is required to excel in industry or even academia. Now this is not to say that a degree can't be an immense help, but it's certainly not a guarantee of knowledge, skill, or ability by any stretch of the imagination. If you think that mere performance in school is going to assure you a place in this world, you're simply kidding yourself.

It's ironic that you scoff at people that view IT as being a gravy train, yet you clearly view a piece of paper as a gravy train. Mere intelligence and a degree is not enough. In fact, I'd argue that the degree is relatively insignficant compared to _actually_ being willing to work hard (working "hard" in school is almost never quite the same thing) and being willing to _really_ learn (there is learning and then there is learning...). Just as the merely "certified" MSCE is doomed to mediocrity, so to is the merely "certified" CS-degreed grad; all that seperates the two is their personal backgrounds, a piece of paper, attitude, and a relatively insigificant amount of knowledge.

Reply from another old geek

[geophile]

From your article: Others become prima donnas, demanding large salaries and extreme benefits.

Why is it that a great software developer who demands rewards commensurate with his talents is necessarily a prima donna? Executives do this all the time and no one blinks. I think the problem is popular conceptions: executives are driven by greed while software developers are driven by love for what they do. In other words, it is out of character for a software developer to raise such base concerns as salary. Well that's ridiculous. If you love what you do, and you are a master of your craft, why not insist on what you are capable of earning? You can be sure that the managers and executives you're negotiating with take exactly the same approach.

Plumb the engineering departments

[mav[LAG]]

Don't look in Computer Science - too many of the types you don't want. Rather see if you can't find second or third-year engineers with some programming experience. At the varsity I was at, a goodly proportion of engineers realised that the field wasn't for them halfway through the course. They were engineering-minded certainly, but some were already seduced by the ease of software development vs. hardware development, others just didn't want to pursue it full time.

The point is: look here first. You'll get bright people with some programming experience, maybe some exposure to numerical analysis of real-world data and precious little purism.

A few blunt comments from an old geek.

[bfwebster]

(1) Your quest is constrained in large part by the fact that only a small fraction of the population has any actual talent in software development and engineering.

(2) Even many of those individuals with talent have insufficient knowledge of (and/or, apparently, desire to learn about) the art and science of software engineering and so persist in making the same stupid mistakes that have been well-documented for 30+ years.

(3) As a result, anyone who has had to recruit software developers can tell you how much muck you have to sift through to find the gems.

(4) I can't speak for the relevance of most CS departments; I know that my undergraduate CS program (BSCS, BYU, 1978) helped me tremendously when I went out into the real world. But that may have been an anomoly; I had some brilliant teachers with real-world experience (one had worked at Bell Labs; another went on to co-author and co-found Word Perfect).

(5) After some years in the workforce, many of those with talent and skills find they can double or triple their salary by becoming a consultant. This leads to a talent-flight from organizations.

In short, you're trying to find someone with talent, training, inclination to your topics and circumstances, and a lack of awareness of how much s/he could be making elsewhere. :-)

Best of luck. ..bruce..

Classic problem -- you are not alone

[martyb]

There is not much detail in your problem statement, so there's much guesswork going on here, so please bear with me.

A key factor, I suspect, is your statement: "We are not programmers, so it is somewhat difficult to evaluate the competence of CS graduates."

The Problem: It strikes me you are running into the classic problem of not understanding what programming can do easily and what is difficult. More than likely, you've been sold a story from some instrument vendor that the XYZZY 2000 can do lots of wonderful things, and you really need it for what you are trying to do, and the best part is that it has a port that allows data aquisition and control from a computer!

Right. (Sarcasm intended.)

Here's a guess at what your situation is:

You've got a feel for the conceptual side of what you want to accomplish in the big picture, and the programming aspect is some vague, nebulous, "black box" where some programmer is supposed to come in and make it all work? But, things take MUCH longer than expected, and does not do what you want it to, and when the programmers try to explain what their difficulties are, it's so arcane (to you) that it sounds like they are just trying to evade their assigned responsibilities.

I've seen this KIND of problem countless times in my 25 years of experience programming, designing, and testing.

Suggestions:

• Learn Programming! A couple courses in Algorithms, Data Structures, and Numerical Computing, I think, would give YOU tremendous insight into the very real challenges of programming. Then, you can BEGIN to fairly assess and understand what you are trying to do.
• Hire a Seasoned Programming Manager It's one thing to hack together a couple of small little programs to do some ad hoc tasks. It's quite another thing to develop code that has solid error checking, has consistent user interface design, and that is also maintainable, reusable, and extensible. Hire someone who knows the difference and who can act as an interface between what you [think you] WANTt and the realities of what you really NEED.
• Design, Design, Design! Planning is Key! Step-wise refinement is Your Friend. This is a classic problem I've encountered where the thought is "We need this ASAP! We don't have time to plan it all out... can't you just do blah, blah, blah for now and we'll get to the rest, later?" Build a SOLID foundation in your design, and CLEARLY IDENTIFY the difficulties. If things are well-understood, the programming is effortless. Continual change requests and edge-case surprises will cost you far more time and energy in the long run than it would take to try and do it right the first time. (This IS difficult; human nature seems to want to look at the things we can do, and to avoid the things that are problematic.) In short, if it's hard to design, it's gonna be hard to code until you DO design it. Recognize and understand that truth and you'll have come a long ways!
• Hold Design and Code Reviews! Get involved, be open-minded, learn! Granted, the coding stuff may look like so much gibberish to you at first. I imagine calculus or particle physics did once, too. If you can learn THAT, you can learn some of this, too, if you want to and understand the need for it. Reviews provide a forum for a "meeting of the minds", an opportunity to openly share what challenges have been faced and the efforts employed to manage them. The abstract becomes concrete and there is a gradual growth of mutual understanding of the scientific challenges (so the developers better understand WHAT you are trying to accomplish - what is important and what is not) as well as an understanding of the programming challenges (NP-complete problems, inconsistent data formats, dirty/inconsistent data, bugs in the instrument's programming interface, etc.) Again, a seasoned programming manager should understand these issues and can help guide things along (but, from experience, DO NOT have the programming manager attend the code reviews! Really closes down communications when the guy/gal who has responsibility for hiring, firing, reviews, and promotions is sitting across the table -- problems just go unmentioned for fear of reprisal!)

Lastly, it has been my experience that there is a lot of truth in the adages: "The longest distance between two points is a shortcut." and "Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick any two, but you cannot have all three at once." (e.g. if you need it Right Now, and it has to be Bulletproof, it's going to cost you a lot.) I truly wish you well on your efforts and hope that something I've shared here from my own experience has been able to help.