Can Anyone Become a Programmer?

another random user writes "A Q&A on Ars Technica asks about an old adage that many programmers stick to: 'It takes a certain type of mind to learn programming, and not everyone can do it.' Users at Stack Exchange are wading in with their answers, but what do Slashdot users think?"

Comments

Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Re:Answer

[Deep Esophagus]

If you had what it takes to be a real programmer, your answer would have been:
0

Re:Answer

[Kergan]

10 as in two, or ten?

Re:Answer

[tsa]

I asked but they don't understand what you mean.

Re:Answer

[man_of_mr_e]

Anyone can become a programmer. Not everyone can become a GOOD programmer, or even a competent one.

Even fewer can become an exceptional programmer.

It's not just practice. I've put far more than the 10,000 hours required to master a skill into learning to play Guitar, but I still suck. The reasons are probably many, but I've also come to understand I'm just not talented in this regard.

Just like some people are natural artists, some people are natural programmers. Some people aren't natural programmers, but can become proficient with a lot of practice. Some people can't get it not matter how much or how long they practice.

Some people think logically. Some people think intuitively. The former can become competent programmers. The latter, not so much.. because computer languages just don't make intuitive sense.

The REALLY good programmers are ones that can both think logically AND intuitively. They can use logic and still intuitively jump to conclusions that would take far longer with logic alone.

Now, whether or not you can change your way of thinking, or whether or not you are born with a certain way of thinking is unclear. Certainly, I think how a child is raised affects the way they will think as an adult, but it also requires aptitude.

Re:Answer

[anomaly256]

Typical 'cowboy' programmer. The real answer should have been 'b0' for self documenting disambiguation and clarity when working in a group project

Re:Answer

[anomaly256]

I'd argue that it also takes desire and motivation - something not everyone will have. It does also take a certain level of reasoning ability to become a good programmer. I've met plenty of average programmers who end up making more problems than they solve then having to fix up their naive work. They usually have ample university credentials and years of PHP or Java dev experience and seem like reasonably intelligent and rational people but for whatever reason just continually miss things that should be obvious and struggle trying to model complex objects or interactions. I guess maybe the term 'programmer' is bit ambiguous - in this context does the author mean 'code monkey' or 'architect' ?

Re:Answer

[anomaly256]

Oh yeah, that brings me to another point that needs to be mentioned: Those devs with ample university credentials I've encountered seem to have a REALLY hard time switching languages. It seems like they rote-learned the languages without actually comprehending the design patterns and can't reapply their knowledge to new languages - something that should come very easy to a 'good' programmer or higher. Whether this is due to their education or cognitive process, I can't say. But I would think the 'right' kind of mind would be able to do this task automatically without being trained to. I do believe anyone can get there if they desire to, but I do also believe some people have an innate advantage for getting there earlier/easier

Re:Answer

[benlwilson]

There is an important difference between
- People who have no motivation and don't want to be a programmer so never find out if they're any good at it.
- People who believe they're not smart enough to do programming.
- People who don't not have the mental capacity necessary to follow logic.

I reckon if you took a random sample of say 1000 people and put them through a decent 2 year programming course with the legit promise of 1 million dollars at the end if they pass you would find a pretty large percentage of them would be able to code reasonably by the end and get the money.
After they got the money however, most of them would go back to their normal jobs since they wouldn't actually enjoy or want to do computer program as a career.

Re:Answer

[CastrTroy]

I guess with the million dollar prize at the end, you could probably get some people motivated enough. But I would think there's a very high percentage of people who really just don't have the "mental capacity necessary to follow logic". You'd probably end up with a lot of people passing, but still not really understanding how to program at the end. I saw a lot of this in university. They'd get a whole bunch of help on the assignments, or just outright copy from other students. In the exam, they'd cram until they could just barely pass, and then proceed to forget everything within minutes after the exam, leaving them no more knowledgable then before the class. It's not that people are stupid, but I knew some pretty "smart" people (they did well enough in highschool to get accepted to engineering), but who utterly failed at anything programming related.

Re:Answer

[arth1]

Hmm, twenty two is an odd base to work in but I suppose it's still valid.

I thought twentytwo was even. In all bases except base one.

Re:Answer

[man_of_mr_e]

That's simply not true.

Speaking of auto mechanics. There's this thing called "Mechanical Aptitude", which good auto mechanics have. They can visualize how the machinery operates in their head. Not everyone can do that.

Having knowledge does not make one good at their job. Having failed 200 times doesn't mean you won't fail on the 201st time. Some people fail to learn from experience.

I'm not saying you need to be a genius. I'm not saying you need to be a genius to be good at programming... But some people do not have an aptitude for logical and critical thinking.

You accuse me of being an egomaniac, but you are guilty of the opposite. You expect everyone to be like you.

I think you will find yourself constantly disappointed in others.

Re:Answer

[arth1]

The mental capacity to follow logic does not mean you can be a good programmer. Codemonkey, perhaps, but not programmer. You need to be innovative too, and be able to make leaps of logic, not just follow logic.

Re:Answer

[man_of_mr_e]

They may be learned skills, but some people have greater aptitude for them than others. Further, there is some evidence that our brains develop in the ways they are taught as a child, and that once we reach adulthood the brain is much more difficult to change.

Some people simply may not have developed the right way of thinking and severely handicap their ability to learn skills such as those.

Absolutely not.

[mark_reh]

Some people do not have the logical thinking skills that are required to be a successful programmer.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Designersa]

Most people also want to have romantic relationships in their lives, so becoming a programmer is a very bad choice for them.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Designersa]

IQ isn't exactly an exact science but as an off hand estimate the average IQ is ~100.

It's not freaking estimate. The average is fixed at 100. Sigh. And you complain about people being stupid. Sigh. SIGH.

Re:Absolutely not.

[marsu_k]

IQ isn't exactly an exact science but as an off hand estimate the average IQ is ~100.

By definition the average IQ is 100. Also by definition, half of the population is dumber than average, something I find having to remind myself of every now and then.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 100 IQ is an estimate of an average for any given IQ test since not all people can be measured.

Re:Absolutely not.

[AK Marc]

Julia Childs picked up cooking late in life with no previous interest or apparent pre-disposition. Programming is like cooking. The only thing that stops old women from moving from cooking to programming is interest. Otherwise, writing and following a recipe is programming, even if not on a computer.

Re:Absolutely not.

[AK Marc]

No, it is not. It is arbitrarily stated to be 100, but the re-balance of the IQ is not consistent across populations, nor time. So the defined mean is not absolute.

Also, if you knew about how they actually set it, they set it based on the middle people, with assumptions about the tails. As there is an absolute minimum, and no maximum, the long tail effect will push the "average" (mean) above 100. If it were actually a true normal curve as asserted, the mean and median would coincide at 100. As it is, the mean is, by definition, above 100, while the median is what's set to 100. But if you set the test based on middle aged white males in the US, then the world average is somewhere around 90-95, as was done with the first tests. 100 is, at best, an estimate, due to the problems of what it is and how it's set.

Re:Absolutely not.

[u38cg]

Citation: www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf

Re:Absolutely not.

[Greyfox]

And it's no possible to learn those? Logic isn't magic. You don't have to have a certain midiclorian count to learn it.

In my experience, anyone can become a programmer. I've seen enough of them do it. Also, in my experience, most people can't become good programmers. It requires a certain obsessive interest that most people either don't have to begin with or lose once they start thinking about girls, children, hobbies and the like. Plus it requires a somewhat high midiclorian count.

I don't have any data to back it up, but I'd guess that if companies knew how to filter on good programmers in the interview process, only about 10% of programmers working today would be working as programmers. And the average salary of a programmer would probably be upwards of one million dollars. Fortunately we can kind of limp by on the mediocre programming and design put out by everyone else, and it's usually at least a bit of a productivity boost for the company.

Re:Absolutely not.

[greenbird]

Programming classes at reputable colleges have an horrible attrition rate that can be largely laid at the door of people just not being able to grasp it.

Programming classes are NOT where one learns to program. They are where you learn a particular language syntax. Language theory, discreet math, compiler design, OS design, etc...are where one learns to program. The belief that you actually learn to program in a programming language class is one of the major failings on our industry.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Kergan]

More often than not, I've found it actually is a three constraint problem. Work, play, women; pick two.

Re:Absolutely not.

[jc42]

There's something else that's a significant barrier for most people: Pretty much every successful programmer will tell you about their first lesson when trying to write some small programs, and their discovery that no matter how hard they tried, their first efforts always had bugs. They quickly discovered that this was a permanent part of programming, accepted it, and studied debugging techniques.

But most people can't get past this problem, because they can't admit to themselves that they will never be able to write a significant chunk of code without error. The good programmers are the people who can admit that they're hopelessly fallible, face the fact, and learn how to deal with it.

Also, the good programmers tend to have a sense of humor about it all. One explanation I heard years ago from someone who was a very good programmer is that programming is actually a sort of computer game. The way the scoring works is that, every time you write something and the computer does what you wanted it to do, you get a point. But when something inside one of the many libraries in the computer finds a way to interpret something you wrote in a way that's different than what you expected, the programmer who wrote that chunk of code gets a point. A good programmer is one who can maintain a score that is usually positive in this game.

Using this understanding, one way of explaining why I and many other programmers like unix-type systems is that we can usually win at the programming game. Things in such systems tend to (mostly) work the way the documentation says they work -- and the documentation exists. I've worked on a lot of other kinds of computer systems, and on all the others, I constantly lose points to things that work differently than I expected, but often what I expected was just a guess, because the documentation is so sketchy or 17 releases out of date ;-).

Even this sort of humor is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the deck is stacked against us, we'll never get it right the first try, and the people who built the computers systems we're using like it that way. But I was willing to face my limitations in the face of a game that's biased against me from the start and has grown to be so complex that I know I can't keep track of all the gotchas in my conscious mind. Most people can't admit their own fallibility in this way, so they will never be good programmers.

Re:Absolutely not.

[b4dc0d3r]

I worked with a guy who did a lot of VBA and a little ASP code. He usually got about 90% right, and then mental blocked on some syntax.

I'd give him a few hints, and eventually he would solve it. But the next time it came up, he just couldn't grasp it.

I'm not saying he can't become a successful programmer. But without some very careful guidance, study, and experience, he won't. And because he won't take the time, he can't become a programmer.

He needs to understand things like where a function is. Is it in a static class? Is it a global function? Is it a class method? And why does it work one way but not another? Given time, he could learn these things.

He also can't spell worth a damn and knows it. With a language with as many broken rules as English, you have to develop some sort of intuition about which letters go together in this context, and with programming you need the same kind of intuition, Maybe they are related, maybe not. But hopefully it made more sense than a car analogy. If you don't understand why the parts don't fit together the way you think they should, you can't make progress.

So regardless of whether people have the logic skills and abstract thinking, you can have the skills but not the tools to use them. I'll leave the flamewar about people who completely lack the skills to somewhere else.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Anonymous Coward]

So your specs say that you can only have two tasks running at once? Just swap current state to... oh, I see those are external systems and after you lose connection, reconnecting is a bitch... you might be right.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Dahamma]

I like this analogy.

More generally, I'd say no, not everyone can learn to program to any useful degree. But it most certainly isn't based on some silly concept like "a special logical mind" or anything.

If people can become accomplished economists, musicians, physicists, or poets, graduate from medical or law school, or as you say, write an authoritative, award winning cookbook, they can learn to program. They may not because they have no interest, but if they have the capacity and motivation to learn they can definitely figure it out - and I'm sure if they did they'd be better than a lot of the hacks out there programming professionally today, anyway :)

Re:Absolutely not.

[rgbatduke]

And don't forget the Flynn Effect. It isn't even a constant 100, so 100 this decade doesn't mean what 100 meant last decade.

But still, no, it is not true that my brother (with Down's Syndrome) could have ever become a programmer, whereas I, with an IQ (FWIW) several standard deviations over the mean have gigabytes of source in my source directory, a rather large fraction of which I actually wrote, in several languages.

So the question is still a stupid question, as the answer is obviously no. Worse, it is basically trollbait BEYOND being a stupid question, as somebody of "normal" intelligence can probably write "a program" in a sufficiently simple environment without ever in their lifetime being capable of writing a 50,000 line program with 100 functional modules written on top of various APIs (some of which they created) running over the network on top of UDP socket layer code. Actually, a lot of fairly ABOVE average intelligence well-trained programmers might fail there, or do a poor job if they succeeded.

So the proper answer is "No, to be a good programmer you have to be smarter than the average human, and probably better educated too. Propensity to skip showers and live on Jolt Cola optional. Troll."

rgb

Re:Absolutely not.

[rgbatduke]

Actually, programming is more like writing a cookbook. Lots of people who cook can't write a cookbook. For example, illiterate ones. Similarly, it helps to be literate in a computer language in order to be able to program, which in turn requires an above average ability to deal with a peculiar kind of metaphor and an above average understanding of tools far more demanding than a source of heat, a knife, and some ingredients. The thing that prevents old women or old men or old monkeys or old dogs from moving from food to programming is a mix of intelligence, interest, and motivation.

It is, for example, fairly common belief that programmers make an income that is well above average. It's a common belief because it is true. Yet you don't see teen-age fry cooks piling in to programming to multiply their minimum wage income by close to an order of magnitude. Why not? Because programming is difficult, and you have to be both smart enough to do it and inclined to WANT to do it, regardless of the obvious rewards of working in an air conditioned environment sitting on your ass while making $60K/year or more with benefits compared to slinging greasy burgers at possibly armed and dangerous clients in a Burger King late at night for $200 a week on a good week -- ooo, and then there are those pesky social security deductions and a manager that laughs hysterically if you mention the word "benefits" right before he fires you.

rgb

Re:Absolutely not.

[mellon]

Those are farmers, not programmers. Programmers sacrifice chickens. Everybody knows that.

(FWIW, I'm a Buddhist, I never go to church, and one of the Buddhist courses I took back when I started was a course on logic and critical thinking, which as far as I was able to tell was pretty much the same system of logic that we use today. I think that contradicts pretty much all of the above wild-eyed assertions, but I'm sure someone will correct me, or else incorrectly state that Buddhism isn't a religion...)

Re:Absolutely not.

[Velex]

Well, I'd conjecture that there are two "midiclorians" in play.

The most common failure I've seen is when people who want to learn programming anthropomorphise the computer and approach programming in a religious manner, as though a computer can somehow understand English the way you or I can. When they get a syntax error, they view the computer as being a grammar nazi. When the program they've written fails to produce the result they wanted, they see the computer as some kind of adversarial lawyer who's found a loophole in their program and is refusing to play nice with them just to piss them off. I attribute this mode of thinking to watching too much Star Trek or other sci-fi where computers are able to comprehend and respond to verbal, natural-language queries without ever coming back with "I'm sorry, Dave, but I was unable to parse that. Syntax error occurred because I expected a different infection follow the word 'and.' Would you please try again?"

People who fit in that category often have poor grammar. Just something I've noticed. Humans are very tolerant of improper grammar and bad usage. Computers aren't, and they can't understand why, especially if computers are supposed to be so much more smart than humans.

The other failure I've seen is also another mode of magical thinking: failure to understand what's going on under the hood. These are people who sometimes can get jobs as programmers, but they just don't "get it." XML is the best example I can think of. I've noticed some things written back when XML was the next big thing almost seemed to start from the permise that by virtue of being well-formed that XML would somehow be able to parse itself. Somehow, XML would imbue a computer program with a deep understanding of what a book or a library was.

Another example I think fits with the latter mode of magical thinking rather than the former is the idea that a "hacker" can "steal" one's IP address, as though an IP address is mystical knowledge, sort of like certain mystical traditions that believe that if somebody knows one's "true" name, then that person will somehow gain power over them.

I suppose, in conclusion, the very idea of a "midichlorian" i.e. magical thinking is what causes many people to fail at learning how to program.

Re:Absolutely not.

[pla]

Your joke aside, I don't think you've really missed the mark by much, here...

I firmly believe that somewhere around half (possibly much higher) the population cannot ever learn programming to any meaningful level. Perhaps really simple Excel formulas, but they learn them more by rote than through any true understanding of what really goes on to make the magic happen.

Of the other half of the population, who have a sufficient grasp of logic and can grasp the idea of breaking a problem down into tiny steps to solve it methodically - The vast majority, well over 95%, hate doing so. Hate it. They would rather have a root canal than do that for a living. They might have managed to suffer through an intro-to-programming course or two in college, but they really would go completely bonkers if you asked them to program on any regular basis.


Programmers, on the other hand, tend to view our art almost as a form of meditation - The real "skill" of our art doesn't involve the ability to handle boolean logic or memorize APIs (those just count as a sort of prerequisite), but rather, the ability to go into a deep alpha state and stay there for hours at a time.


So... No. Not anyone can become a programmer. And of those who can - Most don't want to, not for any amount of money.

Re:Absolutely not.

[wierd_w]

I believe that the parent confused "cooking", with "Gastronomy".

Being a good cook, has several potential paths: 1) you are REALLY good at following directions, 2) You can consistently reproduce the results of others from directions, and 3) you can spot when an error has been made.

Being good at gastronomy is different. You can look at a recipe, and see glaring problems. You can look at a recipe, and make arbitrary modifications to improve some characteristic of the finished product. (Fluffier muffins, tangier sauces, whatever.) You can find novel ways to combine foods for novel arrangements of flavors and textures.

The former requires you to follow directions, to produce something that other people consider tasty. The latter requires you to know what your ingredients actually taste LIKE, and imagine how they will taste together, and how they will behave together.

Programming is not like cooking, unless you are doing the most boring of code-grinding tasks. Programming is more like the latter. You can spot areas that clearly could be improved, and suggest ways to improve them, without throwing off the finished product. You can understand the finished product sufficiently to know what you need to get there, and how different parts of that product work with each other sufficiently to know how to change or improve those components without bringing the whole thing down. (An example, would be knowing and understanding how the ingredients in puff pastry interact, and why you have to use the proscribed method, and if it needs to be modified, that deep understanding allows you to make successful modifications, and not sugary glueballs.)

A person who creates brand new foods, and modifies existing ones in new and novel ways is a gastronomist. A person with a book of cookery and is good at following directions is a cook.

For clarity, I *can* program, but I am not a programmer, and do not claim to be. I could possibly become a decent programmer if I had the incentive to code for more than personal pleasure and one-off problem resolution, but I dont. Not like I have drive for cookery. :D I can look at a recipie for cake, and suggest a laundry list of modifications for different textures and flavors without ruining the base, and it is easy and fun for me. Not everyone can do that, nor should they. The same is true for programming, and I can clearly see that.

I can program, but I am not a programmer.

Re:Absolutely not.

[RabidReindeer]

I think that almost anyone can become a programmer. What they lack is the ability to put-up with the mind-numbing boredom that programming represents, just as many people lack the ability to listen to a teacher drone in a classroom about math or science or english verb tenses. Many people would rather be doing something else. (Just like right now I'd rather be watching a movie instead of coding..... oh wait, that is what I'm doing. Well technically I'm doing both.)

I would like to propose 3 categories, based on personal observations, including the dropout rates I've seen in programming classes:

1. People who'd rather have their internal organs gouged out with dull spoons rather than program. I cannot say definitively that some members of this group simply cannot program at all, but I'm willing to entertain that idea, based on the proverbial VCRs with flashing "12s".

2. People who can program but consider it "mind-numbing boredom". In other words, it's just a job. If it's mind-numbing enough, you get to move to group #1.

3. People who are freaking insane and would rather program than have sex (not that they're proverbially given a choice). Who consider "mind numbing" and "programming" to be mutually exclusive.

For practical purposes you can really only hire programmers from groups 2 and 3. Ideally, they'd all be 3's, but there aren't enough 3's to go around, even if they weren't stereotypically social nightmares.

Re:Absolutely not.

[dkleinsc]

The solution to your problem is to find a woman that being with counts as "play".

Re:Absolutely not.

[AaronLawrence]

This sounds very interesting me, because in the last few years I had some major life changes, and afterwards found that I really quite dislike going into this state that makes for really productive programming. I now try to tackle it much more piecemeal and process oriented, and while I might be more thorough and thoughtful, I'm pretty sure it's much slower.

So my conclusion is that this alpha state for programmers is something really unhealthy and maybe programming is quite damaging ...

I dunno

[MightyMartian]

I've had this conversation in many different formats over the years, and I keep coming back to the peculiar nature of programming, or at least good programming. There is no doubt that technical background or training is highly desirable, but there is also an intuitive aspect that makes it more than just fitting blocks together. Given the right tools, I think anyone can code, but programming beyond basic HTML form processing or Excel macros takes something more.

Re:I dunno

[Joce640k]

A bit like playing the guitar then. Anybody can learn a few chords but being a professional musician takes a thing called "talent".

(Or substitute any other skill for playing the guitar...)

To answer the original question: I refer you to Betteridge's Law

Re:I dunno

[Omnifarious]

This is my general feeling on the matter too.

I used to spend a lot of time in the college computer lab trying to help people learn to program. Unlike many programmers, I actually kind of enjoy that sort of thing.

And there were some who understood, and many who didn't. No matter how you worked the angles or found different ways of explaining it, they just couldn't build an effective mental model of what the computer was doing in their head.

I would be really curious to watch the person in the article who claims that he can teach anybody to program and see his technique involving getting them away from a computer. Maybe he's found a way that I haven't.

But really, my personal feeling at this point is that no, not everybody can learn to program.

Programmer v.s. Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

Programming (a.k.a. Coding) has many levels, but yes, most people are able to handle the logic necessary and can acquire the skills in time.

Development is another level which many programmers either don't attain or are not willing to go to, but it is a step that makes a big difference in the code produced.

Unfortunately, the terms seem to be used interchangeably, thus diluting the developer's value and putting expectations on programmers that they cannot live up to.

Motivation

[Tablizer]

If you don't enjoy something, then usually you don't have motivation to learn and perfect the art. Perhaps anyone can be a satisfactory opera singer with enough training, but that doesn't mean they WANT to be an opera singer.

It's also true some pick up on programming and learning new languages faster. While anybody can probably learn with enough practice, it may not make economic sense to you and the company to take a long time to get into the flow of things. Possible, yes. Practical, no.

unfortunately

[circletimessquare]

the only answers you will find in this thread will answer a different question:

"what prejudicial preconceptions of yours about the field of programming tweaks your ego?"

Re:unfortunately

[Zero__Kelvin]

Bullshit. I am aware that not everyone has what it takes to be a car mechanic. In fact a relatively small part of the population has what it takes. Does that mean you think I hero-worship car mechanics?

Re:unfortunately

[Calphool]

I think it depends on where you put the magnifying glass.... what does "has what it takes" really mean, and when am I officially "a mechanic?"

Probably almost everybody "has what it takes" to learn how to change the oil in their car. At a certain fundamental level, they're "a mechanic". If you can break down a complex task like "change the air conditioning compressor" into a smaller set of steps as simple as changing your oil, then again, almost everybody "has what it takes" to change the air conditioning compressor on their car, and now, in a much more general way, they're "a mechanic" (maybe they qualify for "shade tree mechanic" now).

It's all related to learning theory, and it's also why striking teachers in Chicago rightly say that everybody has an opinion about education, but very few people are actually trained at it (and by extension, qualified to evaluate how well it's being done in a given context).

Re:unfortunately

[phantomfive]

Is that your preconceived notion? I know of no study that shows 'a relatively small part of the population has what it takes to become a car mechanic.' Are you making assumptions? Come on, use good logic now.

I believe it does take a certain kind of mind

[TheRealGrogan]

I've never had much aptitude for programming. The "programming" (code editing) I do is pretty chunky. I can look at a block of code, go find another example, somewhat understand what THAT block of code is doing and perhaps with a bit of trial and error, come up with the right thing to do. I don't understand the fundamentals. I remember being exposed to programming in earlier years and I just didn't get it. I didn't foresee myself needing it. Maybe if I'd have paid more attention to the preliminary exercises... I don't know, it just seemed pointless because it didn't make sense to me.

So basically, without examples, I'm fucked.

Re:I believe it does take a certain kind of mind

[dwillden]

I agree, I was able to hack my way through the classes needed in my CS program but it was obvious my skills were more on the hardware, and networking side of the house. My code was always clunky and barely capable and took much more work than others. Not that I didn't try, but coding just wasn't where my brain worked.

so true!

[joocemann]

Being into computers since 1990, I had thought coding may be a career. In 1999, my first shot at college, and coding, I came to see it was not for me.

I aced the C Programming course, but it wasn't the technicalities of the language that repelled me... it was the environment.

I realized a day's work of coding meant sitting in one spot, staring at chars/text, thinking, and then more of the same. Even the 2-3 hours of coding "lab" was absurd, to me. I was NOT ok with this style of work.

I realized the CS path was clearly for someone else and moved on.

Re:so true!

[gidds]

a day's work of coding meant sitting in one spot, staring at chars/text, thinking, and then more of the same.

To judge from some of my co-workers over the years, the 'thinking' part would seem to be optional...

Re:so true!

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I realized a day's work of coding meant sitting in one spot, staring at chars/text, thinking, and then more of the same

I have been a programmer (developer, designer, architect... whatever you would like to call it) for more years than I care to count and I have never worked in that manner. My clients come to me with a problem. I make sure I understand the problem. I detail what I will need from them and then I tell them I will call them when I have something for them. I work when I want (as in when I feel I am going to be productive not just because it is some particular time of day) and where I want. Sometimes I don't work for days and sometimes I will work non-stop for days. The only time I go through the process you describe is if I have to use a specialized piece of equipment that cannot be moved off site.

But you're right - there is an awful lot of thinking going on and the fact is the more time you spend thinking, and the earlier in the process you do it, the less time you spend sitting in one spot staring at characters...

A very common problem with programmers is that they see the solution as writing code and really really want to get to that fast... I used to see this with students all the time... but the real solution is thinking. Programming is creating a mental object... a mental sculpture if you will... and once you have perfectly visualized that sculpture and the relationships between all the facets then translating that to code is pretty tivial and doesn't require a lot of debugging.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[wdef]

I think it requires a certain level of intelligence as a minimum. Nothing incredibly special but above average and an interest in learning how to control that box. Interest can drive aptitude. But a low IQ is going to hamper working in, say, C. Object-oriented and the workings of inheritance in C++ are going to be hard to work with if you're plain dumb.

Documentation for libraries is not infrequently poor or even wrong and there seems to be some tacit assumption that programmers will work out how things work anyway, even if that just means knowing where to get help.

And it depends what you call "programming". If that includes designing solutions to complex or novel (hence no off-the-shelf libraries) solutions, then you have to design complex algorithms, which requires creativity. You need to be able to evaluate and select the right solution, too, something even very smart programmers get wrong.

Programmer vs Good Programmer

[ryen]

I think a distinction should be made between a programmer and a *good* programmer. My CS program had a number of *really* smart kids - 1600 SAT scores and the like - but many of them really struggled at the concepts and barely made it through the curriculum. I think a good programmer takes 1. Creativity to think about problems from different angles 2. Drive to hunker down and get through hard problems (be it starting a new language, that pesky compile error, starting a large project from scratch). 3. I'm sure fellow slashdotters can think of many more

Re:Programmer vs Good Programmer

[Omnifarious]

The grandparent's experience mirrors my own. Some people just couldn't get it. They were really bright, wrote well, were articulate and capable. But they just couldn't get programming.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[TheRealMindChild]

Your whole post left my mouth agape. The standpoint that you are coming from, all programming can be simplified into dragging and dropping visual widgets and throwing in a bit of high-level platform code to tie it all together. If that is your view of what programming is, no wonder you think it isn't special. You aren't always programming on Windows. You don't always have desktop-sized amounts of memory. Sometimes YOU need to write one of those libraries that are NOT "already coded".

And no, an astronaut doesn't just "drive the shuttle"

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Joce640k]

Your whole post left my mouth agape.

It's called "trolling"...

Anyone...

[Wattos]

Anyone can become a programmer, just like anyone can become a painter.

It does not mean that the person would be a good programmer though. I could be an artists, but I would not be a good painter if my life dependent on it.

Re:Anyone...

[RabidTimmy]

I think this provides a reasonable basis for how to think about the issue. I read through most of the Ars comments and I found one recurring confusion that nobody seemed to have picked up on that seems to be continuing on into the Slashdot comments. That confusion is really that people are arguing two different questions. The first is "Can anyone be a good/professional/successful programmer?" and the second is "Can anyone learn to program?". These are in fact two different questions.
I've found everyone is arguing one of the two and most of the contentions between people come from when they don't realize they are arguing two very different questions.

Now I'll try to take a stab at the two questions. As "Can anyone learn to program?" is a requisite for "Can anyone be a good programmer?" I'll start with that question first.

Can anyone learn to program? : I don't know and I'm willing to venture a guess that no one on this forum really know either, regardless of how sure they may think they are. I venture to say, though, that I do think the vast majority of people can learn/be taught to program given the right instruction, motivation, and time. I'd recommend the following post on Ars. I think it provides a good example that the right instruction is crucial.

Obviously, some people are going to find programming more natural than others. For me, learning programming came very easy. Writing did/does not. Other people are the exact opposite. Does this mean that I can never learn to be an ok writer. I tend not to think so and I believe the reverse is true for people who are not naturally gifted for programming. What it does mean, at least to me, is that they have to learn to think in a new way (admittedly not easy, but it is possible). The real question then is how much effort will it take, does the person have the motivation to do it, and is it a worthwhile venture. I'll leave these to somebody else to answer.

Next, can anyone be a good programmer? This is really more of an extreme version of the other question. I'll hold to what I said with the previous question that most people could. However, the issue of whether it is worthwhile to spend the amount of time to develop the skills to become proficient is even valid. I suspect the answer is no. While I'm a believer in developing a range of talents, I also believe that being productive in society means that one needs to hone their skills in an area to become as good as they could possibly be. It seems natural then that the area in which one attempts to excel in is in an area that they are naturally gifted in to begin with. The person could then progress much further and the initial learning curve and potentially the later learning curve is much less steep for them. Lastly, one additional question: can anyone become an amazing programmer? To this I would have to say almost always no. This is akin to saying, "Can anyone become a DaVinci, a chess grandmaster, or an elite athlete?" Reaching the pinnacle of an area requires both dedication and natural ability. Even most programmers will never reach such a level that they can see any problem and quickly come up with an elegant solution for it. This is at the far end of the ability scale and for someone who isn't naturally adept at programming, and asking them to figuratively carve David.

Just my 3 cents.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[kelemvor4]

Your whole post left my mouth agape. The standpoint that you are coming from, all programming can be simplified into dragging and dropping visual widgets and throwing in a bit of high-level platform code to tie it all together. If that is your view of what programming is, no wonder you think it isn't special. You aren't always programming on Windows. You don't always have desktop-sized amounts of memory. Sometimes YOU need to write one of those libraries that are NOT "already coded". And no, an astronaut doesn't just "drive the shuttle"

You have to keep in mind, the post seems to have come from a designer. It just sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[eggstasy]

You must have a very interesting job. I think I've designed an actual algorithm once a year, on average.
The rest is mindless factory work.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Anrego]

Even in larger shops I don't see the same kind of heavy architect / programmer seperation as much. It's still there, but a lot of the mindless code has been replaced by libraries, and most entry level coding positions still have a design component to them. Of course the natural progression is as you said, focusing more on design and less on the lower level nuts and bolts, but you make it sound like some kind of line you jump over one day. I see it more as natural career evolution, and at minimum I would still consider myself a "programmer".

The question

[DarkOx]

Implicit in the question is the idea the programing is programing is programing.

I don't think this is case. I would say just about anyone, baring those individuals with some moderate to severe mental impairment can do some programing. Integration programing is usually nothing more than outlining the corrected steps and gluing that outline onto the required boiler plate. Application programing might get a bit more complex but even that should be attainable for anyone able to read and follow documentation.

Oh sure it can get very complicated when you get into ETL on big data sets and such certainly may require a specialist who makes it business to do it well but I do think its something *anyone* could learn. In the same way anyone can learn to be an accountant or an attorney. Getting past some of the hurdles can be tough but with enough time and resources most normally abled people should be able to get there.

When you get into lower level stuff its a different game. I am not so sure just anyone could be taught compiler design for example at least with the outcome they will be proficient and successful working in the field. As you move from programing for high level applications into programing for 'Computer Science', 'Computer Engineering' or 'Systems Programing' than there is a certain group that is able to follow the math, and think about problems with and without abstractions at the same time and other things not everyone has a facility for.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[rolfwind]

Just like anybody can learn to draw. Or to swim.

But that doesn't mean anybody can be the next John Carmack, Leonardo Da Vinci, or Michael Phelps.

Even if we reduce it to the nonphysical work and remove the naturally talented aspect, there is the simple matter of time and drive -- which few people have.

You have removed all doubt

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I don't know where this self-importance stance comes from, but there really is nothing special in being a programmer. It doesn't really require much, nor does it require anything special."

Well, you hit the nail of the problem right on the head. We have met the enemy, and it is you and people like you. The fact that you make this statement shows that you are one of the 80+ percent in the industry that don't belong who are destroying the software ecosystem and making garbage software the norm.

"What is the programmers job in reality? To put out code as fast as possible."

You should have just put an end to your post after the first question, since you clearly don't know the answer.

"Programming itself doesn't require anything special. Designing does."

And there it is. The winning answer in this round of Final Stupidity. The fact that you don't think that designing everything from internal data structures to quality unit tests for your code shows how much you truly have no idea what you are talking about. Abraham Lincoln could have told you that tis' better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Re:You have removed all doubt

[fwarren]

Can anyone learn to play the piano? What about playing the piano compently? What about playing it excelently? Can you read sheet music? Can you read sheet music in one key and tranpose it to another while you play? That last part is easy. All you have to do is teach yourself to read sheet music in such a way that you say "Oh this is in the key of C, so this note is the 3rd intreval in C" and tell your hands "you are playing in G, play the third intreval in G".

It takes dedication, undestandeing, and practice. Oh and natural ability. How good is your ear? How much dexterity do you posess? How well can you listen to other things, read sheet music, conrtol your hands and maintain a tempo? Each person has limits. You might always suck, maybe you can be acceptable. Even then, somone who has many limitations but lots of dedication undertandind and pactice can outdo someone with a natural nack, but does not apply themselves.

Most people don't apply themselves to learn to play the piano or to program.

How much self import should someone have who has learned to play the piano, crack a safe, walk a hiwire, dircet air-traffic, put out an oil rig fire, implode a building, cut a diamond or progam have? Be a little nicer to the 80+ percent of us who have invested enough to have the chops to do this kind of work.

just do interviews and you'll see

[HappyEngineer]

I've interviewed a lot of people for the position of senior engineer. This has taught me that most experienced programmers can't program. Most have trouble writing the simplest of code snippets despite claiming a decade or more of experience.

Given that, I'd say that anyone can become a senior engineer, but few people can learn to program even when given a decade of on the job experience.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[tnk1]

Designing does take some talent, so not arguing there.

However, having attempted to teach people to program before, I can tell you for a fact that you need at least a particular mindset for it. You certainly need one to be *good* at it. It's much like being a car hobbyist. You probably don't want to be an assembly line worker, or even a mechanic, but those who are good at putting cars together tend to have a mindset that is very in tune with putting stuff together and they tend to want to do it, even when it isn't their job.

Of course, nothing says that your job can't make you very tired of even something you might consider otherwise fun. There's probably only so many bolts you can tighten before you get sick of tightening bolts. In the case of the programmer, they probably now want to attack a new problem that they haven't rehashed 100 times over, but I wouldn't say that being a designer makes you special either. Its just another set of problems. The biggest advantage is that you get more control over how things work on your level and down.

We only consider programming to be something of an assembly line job today because we've optimized the hell out of compilers and made languages and tools into some sort of thing where you build your apps out of giant sized Duplo blocks. In the right fields, being a programmer is still a job for wizards, and not lesser skilled workers.

Re:Easy distinction...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"If you are interested in things like girls and personal grooming, you probably don't have the right kind of mind for programming..."

I suppose you were going for humor, but I assure you that in 2012 it is entirely possible to both write code, and enjoy the aroma of a beautiful woman. Bonus points if you can do both simultaneously.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about sour grapes, since it is a reasonable a priori position, but it is wrong as far as I can tell from the literature.

Abstract. A test was designed that apparently examined a student’s knowledge of assignment
and sequence before a first course in programming but in fact was designed to capture their rea-
soning strategies. An experiment found two distinct populations of students: one could build and
consistently apply a mental model of program execution; the other appeared either unable to build
a model or to apply one consistently. The first group performed very much better in their end-of-
course examination than the second in terms of success or failure. The test does not very accurately
predict levels of performance, but by combining the result of six replications of the experiment,
five in UK and one in Australia. we show that consistency does have a strong effect on success in
early learning to program but background programming experience, on the other hand, has little
or no effect.

Re:Like Algebra 1

[mark_reh]

Almost anyone can grasp algebra 1. The way you make them "get it" is to quit handing out medals just for showing up to class and reintroduce some competition for high grades among students. Kids need to do homework (AKA practice) just like any other endeavor. Right now, in schools, there is no consequence for doing poorly. You'll get passed to the next grade level whether you've mastered the current one or not. Teacher and parents keep patting you on the back just for showing up.

I estimate that maybe 80% of my adult patients born after 1975 are on some form of antidepressant drug. I'm starting to think that they were that early/first generation of kids whose self-esteem was made the prime importance in school, rather than learning and achievement. They finish school and get thrown out into the real world where they are expected to perform to some minimum standards and they can't do it and can't understand why, especially in light of the history of being patted on the back for underachievement. The next step is to get prescribed an antidepressant to help their bruised self-esteem cope with the fact that they never learned anything in school and are likely to remain unemployable for the rest of their lives.

Re:Anyone can Do It

[wdef]

With simplified programming languages like Java, that take care of the "hard stuff", anyone can string together some code and do tasks.

And anyone can also make a hell of a mess.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[JaredOfEuropa]

Unfortunately, many people think you are right. And even worse: those people are team leads, managers, executives. Small wonder that so few coding shops actually manage to push out code of high quality, and why the profession in general is more like a bunch of craftsmen than real professionals.

Programming well takes skill and experience. It is not an easy craft to learn, the devil is often in the myriad details and idiosyncrasies of the platform, the libraries, or the specification. What helps immensely is having access to senior programmers who can make sure you're not reinventing the wheel a thousand times over. Bad news there: because programming is "the lowest of the low of IT" and every programmer wants to get out, there are hardly any senior coders left. Most of them are to be found in the hobby or OSS arena; I find very, very few of them in the corporate world. By the way: I know a fair few people who would like to stay involved with coding (and they continue to do it in their free time), but they do not become our senior coders because that position has been eliminated in pretty much every company I've worked for.

Anyone can become a programmer

[guruevi]

But not everyone is going to be a good programmer. I think the 80/20 rule applies here too. 80% of programmers can program, 20% can do it efficiently.

I see examples of bad programming all the time (or you can just read thedailywtf.com) and currently it doesn't matter all that much whether you spend 100,000 extra cycles in a loop. But we're heading once again to a level where efficient programming is going to become more important (low-end, cheap devices like Arduino and Raspberry for the consumer-end and high-end multi-processor systems like GPGPU and shared clusters on a pay-per-cycle on the other end).

In a GPGPU scientific environment (where I work) shaving 10ms off a single looped calculation can easily end up giving you a result 7 days faster. Finding out that a buffer gets flushed every 64-bytes or every 100 microseconds and understanding why filling up a buffer with 0's (and how to do it efficiently) is faster than waiting for a timer to expire is real programmer's work but none of the documentation or even advanced classes on the subjects don't explain such things.

Can anyone become a musician? An artist?

[bfwebster]

Short answer is: yes, in theory; in practice, though, actual results will vary. My observation is that the same is true with programming. Some people are natural talented, some people have good workman-like (workperson-like?) performance, some are pretty wretched no matter how much experience they may actually have, and some just can't grasp the basic concepts enough to really do anything. Note that I've taught computer science on a university level, and I've built software development teams from scratch, so this is based on direct personal observation. ..bruce..

Re:Easy distinction...

[Zero__Kelvin]

So you are saying that both programmers are enjoying the aroma of a beautiful woman while writing code? I like where this is going ...

What type of programmer?

[TrumpetPower!]

I like to think I'm a more-than-competent SQL programmer, and I don't hurt myself too badly at Web and Windows Forms programming.

I work with somebody who does some great stuff in C# who can't warp his head 'round set theory and therefore has real problems with SQL.

I know somebody else who's a real monster with Cisco stuff (a Cisco employee with certifications coming out his ears), and I'd argue that creating networking and firewall rulesets is every bit a form of programming as anything I do...but he'd need some serious handholding just to do a "Hello World" program in Visual Studio.

I know another guy who can make COBOL sing and is not bad at SQL (though he prefers to write his SQL with more procedural code and less set theory than is good), but he wouldn't have much luck doing more than tweaking a Web form.

We're all programmers, all of us good at what we do, some of us great at what we do...and, yet, making any one of us look like rank amateurs at huge swaths of basic programming tasks wouldn't be hard at all.

Could we become good programmers outside our areas of expertise? Probably. But it took me quite a while to figure out how to truly think in set theory, and I'm not sure I'm capable of more than a handful such masteries in any given field in my lifetime.

Cheers,

b&

Re:It requires a logical mind for a start.

[fwarren]

Give me a 32 ounce big gulp and I will tell you of his progress.

Speaking as a teacher

[godrik]

Anybody can learn the basics of all domain (except obvious physical impairment). Everybody can learn how to draw, everybody can learn how to dance, everybody can learn how to speak an other language, everybody can learn maths, everybody can learn how to program. The amount of time required to learn depends on motivation and natural skills.

Not everybody can become exceptional in a particular field. But everything can be taught at a college level to anybody.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[wdef]

I know a fair few people who would like to stay involved with coding (and they continue to do it in their free time), but they do not become our senior coders because that position has been eliminated in pretty much every company I've worked for.

In most engineering fields, engineers don't stay engineers all that long. If they're any good they become managers and stop doing working at the lathe, so to speak. Also, large design exercises are a speciality in some fields and are handled by a department that does only that. In the field, an engineer may be both a manager and a technical problem-solver, but for anything *really* hard specialists are called in. And, tue or not, employers think new graduates will have all this up-to-date fancy shite in their heads, while at the same time, they want managers to have had experience on the shop floor, so they promote upwards from there and replace with cannon fodder CS grads.

BTW, Google prefers to hire maths grads as programmers. Google say that the problem-solving skills of maths grads are better than those of CS grads, and anyone with a maths background will certainly have done some programming during their education and can cope with learning new languages and technologies.

Re:Bent of mind

[wdef]

In fact, mathematicians can be the worst: they think computer science is a subset of math and it really isn't.

Totally wrong. Computer science is *ALL* mathematics. It's programming that isn't maths, for the most part.

Of Course!

[PatDev]

Based on my experience as a professional software developer dealing with many other programmers, I have to say yes! Anyone can become a programmer. You don't even have to learn how to program!

Re:Bent of mind

[Tyler Durden]

They're usually not. In fact, mathematicians can be the worst: they think computer science is a subset of math and it really isn't.

Computer science is, practically by definition, a subset of math. But there are many branches of mathematics out there, and being great at one doesn't necessarily mean a person is great at all of them.

Also, just because someone happens to be a great computer scientist doesn't mean they must also be a great programmer.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Truekaiser]

Oddly i am reminded of an anime called s-cry-ed. Straight cooger, a character based on speed, commented to another one. That anyone given enough time can write novel's. The ones that can do it well are the ones who do it better and faster than the others.

With enough time anyone can learn to code just about anything. it's the people who can do it well and in a small amount of time(say months instead of years for a large project) that are the people with the innate ability for it.

Yes.

[ddt]

I believe everyone can code, but obviously some people are going to be intrinsically better at it.

A few weeks ago, in less than half an hour, I taught about 20 2nd grade kids (generally 7-8 years old) how to count in binary as well as add any length of binary number.

Wondering whether I could beat that, I repeated the feat last week by teaching about 20 1st grade kids (6-7 years old) exactly the same thing. The 1st graders had more trouble keeping their attention than the 2nd graders, but they were all the more enthusiastic to learn.

In case you're wondering how to teach kids of an arbitrarily young age how to learn binary, here was how I did it in three rounds of kids raising their hands to answer my questions:

1. Raise your hand if you like to play video games.
2. How many of you would like to make a video game?
3. Who would like to know the three secrets to making a great video game?

By the third question, I think I could have staged a coup with the eager little mobs.

I've got my eyes on a local pre-school next.

That came out wrong.

PS. Teaching kids how to count and do math in binary is way, way easier than teaching them how to do it in decimal. It should come first IMHO.

Re:Bent of mind

[danlip]

Indeed, I had several professors who were great at theory but lousy at programming - one of them was a former grad student of Dijkstra, and he was the worst (although to arrogant to realize it).

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[blippo]

Indeed, anyone can become a mediocre programmer.

Unfortunately, or not, depending on how you see it, that's all it takes to grind code for a living.
(Perhaps because it's really hard to measure, and most people hiring can't actually code at all)

It's rather unusual to find someone with great analytical and social skills combined with just
the right amount of stubbornness yet responsiveness, curiosity and pragmatism - that makes a really great programmer.

     

Re:Bent of mind

[Kergan]

Lots of folks have strong logical thinking skills. Philosophers. Mathematicians. Lawyers. If logical thinking skills made a successful programmer these folks would be consistently good at it. They're usually not. In fact, mathematicians can be the worst: they think computer science is a subset of math and it really isn't.

Actually, you're technically incorrect on that last point. Anything that you can mathematically demonstrate can be calculated and vice versa. Not that knowing this is of much use in everyday coding of the type you do when you're maintaining a big ball of mud, but hey.

Also fwiw, and in my experience anyway, mathematicians are supremely better coders than CS guys: they abstract more, better, and faster, leading to fewer lines, fewer bugs, fewer edge cases left out, better tests, etc. (Your mileage may evidently vary, since everyone and his dog graduates nowadays.)

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Entire industries have been built upon the adage, "one man can do what another can do". Willpower and motivation are more important than raw intelligence, I've lost count of the number of tortoises that have outpaced hares in my experience.

The divide between designers and developers appears to be another example of this. Yes it helps to be so inclined, but 99% perspiration and all that. Its a skill, like any other, just as sales or electrical engineering are skills. Sure the Picassos are a rare breed, but that doesn't mean someone can't pick it up and become a damn good example of an artist if they really wanted to.

Not a good programmer

[kipsate]

When is someone a programmer? I wrote my first programs on a calculator. They were more like macros actually. Was I a programmer? Of course not. Then I wrote my first BASIC program on an Apple ][ of a friend at highschool. Was I a programmer? Not really. Then I saved up all my money and got myself a C64 and wrote programs in BASIC, then 6510 assembly. Was I a programmer? Well, perhaps, but only 15, so what did I know? A couple of years later I bought myself an Amiga 500. Wrote some stuff in 68000 assembly. When studying computer science, I learned a lot of useless program languages, but also C. Wrote lots of programs in C. Then I started a small company, hired an office space where 10Mb ethernet sockets from the wall connected directly to the net for a low fee, built and hosted web sites on a Intel 80486 running Linux. This was 1995. When I got my first job at an internationally operating start-up, I was busy configuring servers running NT, load balancers, firewalls but also did some SQL and coded some Cold Fusion for the company web site. My old trusty 486 served as DNS server. Was I a programmer? Nah, I did not really consider myself one.

The start-up went nowhere and I moved on. I did, and still do, enjoy programming tremendously. I sometimes still do it in my free time as a hobby. So I got a new job and with this job I could program all day. I made long hours that did not feel like long days at all as I was doing some very nice things, or at least that's what I thought. I was making enhancements to core parts of the software, and even got multithreading working for them, something that they were not able to because of compiler bugs, which I also helped finding. I was refactoring their code at high speed, because there was a lot of room for improvement, to say it politely. I often stared with disbelief and some amusement at the nonsensical functional designs handed to me. But worse, I started to clash with their main programmer, who had been there for a long time, and did not like what he saw. Our manager did not extend my contract after a year. He did not like it either. I was using object oriented techniques which they were not used to, it was a "different paradigm" for them, as the manager put it.

This was a disillusion. Programmers at the time were hard to find, and I could not believe that this was happening to me. Was this manager clueless? Probably. Was their main programmer pulling my leg? Perhaps. But I was sure I had done some very valuable things for them and as a reward, I was thrown out. Apparantly, I had been unable to demonstrate my abilities sufficiently. That might have been either my or their shortcoming, but for me that did not matter. I decided to abandon programming, or rather, developing. I felt developing did not receive the respect it deserved. It was often looked down upon by management and being outsourced to India. I decided to become a business analyst.

Life as a business analyst was a walk in the park compared to programming. I could now make designs on a higher level, but with my technical background, also talk to the guys that were going to implement it. I would never hand over a design that the developers would be unable to build. Also, the deadlines where less pressing. In the cycle design-develop-test-release, the time pressure existed mainly in develop and test. The testers would be the ones making extra hours when a release deadline was to be met.

I had been a business analyst for a couple of years at several banks. They have large systems and a high rate of IT staff turnover. Generally at banks, knowledge it sparse, documentation often non-existent, and management not competent on a technical level. They do have enough money though so they just bring in loads of consultants. So being a consultant I benefitted handsomely financially as well. My days as a programmer that got no love were soon forgotten by just looking at my bank account every now and then. I worked happily with the Indian vendor (Infosys) who created just horrible code, but ultimat

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[sycodon]

one could build and consistently apply a mental model of program execution; the other appeared either unable to build a model or to apply one consistently

So..Programmers and Managers.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[jc42]

Every programmer will get to the point where they don't want to programmers anymore. They start to see how monkey-like programming as a profession is. Then they want to be designers, those who actually need to think of the bigger picture than just putting together basic pieces of code in Visual Studio.

This sounds like something from the 90's when most people were still thinking that the waterfall model works. Do people still think that code monkeys just write code according to some UML and flow diagrams that designers have drawn. ...

Actually, that attitude goes back to the earliest days of programming languages. Back in the 1950s, the first "higher-level" languages were developed, Fortran (for techies) and Cobol (for business folks). If you dig up the early wide-eyed announcements for either language, you'll find widespread claims that they would "end the need for programming", which at the time meant what we call assembly or machine language. They did no such thing, of course; they merely introduced new programming languages that solved some of the problems with the previous languages, but did little to alleviate the more general problems.

The "Visual" approach mentioned by the OP was just one in a long chain of such attempts to eliminate the need for programming, by introducing yet another programming language that solved a few low-level problems in previous software-development schemes. It also failed to eliminate the need for programming, as you can easily see by trying to use some of the balky, buggy products built using that software.

The idea that we can end the need for programming is best understood as a marketing technique, to sell yet another "solution" to whatever its designers saw as the problems with programming. At best, such things can somewhat simplify a few parts of the task that the designers were consciously aware of. So far, there's little evidence that such tools can do more than "move the problems to a higher level". But don't worry; we haven't seen the end of such claimed panaceas. Marketers will continue to tout their "solution" to programming as long as people continue to pay attention (and money) to the people making such claims.

I can't teach, I program for a living.

[holophrastic]

Of course it takes a certain kind of person. Doesn't evening?

For example, I can't teach anything to anyone. I can't even teach my cousin to use my alarm system, so it's just easier to not arm the system when he's around. The skill that I lack is to serialize information in a manner able to be conveyed to another human being.

The reason I lack that particular skill is because I'm always in programming mode. And in my programming, it's about "layered truth statements". It turns out that layered truth statements aren't easy to communicate in english -- in part because english announces such ambiguity in any given sentence that truth statements often fail outright.

Since most programming is done in with positive truths, (SQL especially comes to mind), to be a programmer one must fluidly drop english from their mind. Anyone who can't do so (the way I can't teach) will forever struggle.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[WoLpH]

I agree. Everyone can learn to write basic programs. That isn't to say that everyone can become a good programmer.

Re:Bent of mind

[rgbatduke]

I would have to disagree. Programming isn't algebra, it is metaphor. It is building machines out of words. In fact, I don't know if you meant it humorously, but you yourself say "define the WORD algorithm". I'd argue that most algorithms CAN be described in words. Often even English or Swahili words.

I'm not sure, but I think that's why they call the medium a "programming language". It isn't devoid of math or logic -- far from it -- but it isn't the same thing, either, and a person good at real mathematics can easily suck at programming or vice versa.

Here's a program:

"Take an integer variable named i, fill it sequentially with the integer values from one to one hundred in steps of one, and print out its value on the screen I'm looking at".

This is perfectly understandable English, and can be executed by a reasonably bright student to whom the words are directed where the screen is a whiteboard.

It isn't really any different when written "for (i=1;i <=100;i++) printf("%d\n",i);" or any of the myriad other ways of writing the same program in different programming languages. A machine built out of words/symbols that have a fairly carefully specified operational meaning. Not at all like proving that the angles in a plane triangle add up to pi.

rgb

Programming is first and formost problem solving

[RNLockwood]

I've been programming on ond off since 1975 and I came to realize that it was the problem solving that I liked. I think some one stated explicitly that programming was problem solving in the blog "Coding Horror" recently. Of course to be good at problem solving takes practice. After a while one remembers a similar problem that one solved. (That's a lot like math.) Perhaps some version of that technique might be suitable or one realizes that the first technique could have been better and the improvement could be used for the current problem. An inquisitive mindset and the ability to reduce the problem to its essentials helps, too.

It helps to know one's tools well, too. I've heard a musician say that they could finally make good music when their instrument no longer came between them and their music and I think it's the same for programming. When use of the languages and IDE are second nature one can concentrate on the problem solving. I've never worked in a shop where someone handing me detailed design, though. My work assignments have been some thing like: "This is the input and we need these features". Or "this is the output we need (to feed to some other software) design the input and data gathering protocol". So perhaps my "world view" is a bit insular.

So the answer to the question, IMHO, is "no".

A mathematician, Chris, needed to boil some water and found that the kettle was on the table. After some thought Chris took the kettle to the sink, filled it with water, placed the filled kettle the stove burner, turned on the burner, and waited for the water to boil. The next time the kettle was on the counter. Chris thought about this new situation, placed the kettle on the table, and proceeded as before.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[narcc]

I think it requires a certain level of intelligence as a minimum. Nothing incredibly special but above average

There you have it. You think being able to program makes you special in some way or indicates that you're above average.

Here's the truth: Any idiot can write code. Hell, half of Slashdot taught themselves to program when they were between the ages of 8-13.

All it takes is the will to learn something new. It's no different than learning to work on cars. Do you think auto-mechanics have these same discussions? No. They're more emotionally stable, apparently, than the average developer.

Yeah, just about anyone can learn to write computer programs. Just like every who has ever learned to write code, they'll get better and better as they gain experience

Being able to write computer programs does not make you special. Get over yourself.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[dumcob]

You need to visit a Infosys or TCS campus in India to watch their training centers churning out "programmers" in the thousands. It will change your mind.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[ceoyoyo]

Assuming you (and all the people who modded you up) are programmers, apparently it doesn't require reading comprehension. The guy didn't even mention widgets or dragging and dropping.

I actually thought you'd accidentally replied to the wrong post. If you did, I apologize.

programming is like art.

[jellomizer]

Anyone can draw, most people can draw pictures, the really good ones make art.

Nearly anyone can be taught to code. Most of the coders can make programs to solve problems, but a few of them can make software.

A lot of the skills are similar to art, a lot of touchy feely stuff learned thru skill and practice. We can learn the skills but it takes real practice to be good at it.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[sensei moreh]

As the holder of a (36 year old) BS in mathematics, I believe I was the only person in my programming class to go over my allotted time on the university mainframe. Clearly I excelled at programming infinite loops.

Re:Bent of mind

[sensei moreh]

Actually, I thing the

bent of mind that makes for a successful programmer

is quite similar to that required to successfully create a proof in mathematics. Both mathematical proofs and computer programs can be either hack jobs or works of elegance, or anywhere in between. I think it's safe to say that my efforts in both areas tend toward the former.

Re:Obligatory

[synaptik]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That joke ceased being funny, 10 years ago...

Yes they would

[SuperKendall]

No one with 1600 SAT scores would "struggle through" solving compile errors unless by "struggle" you mean "take some time to solve when they're first learning".

A really good SAT score is an indicator that you are really good at taking standardized tests.

There are often tricks and approaches, that kind of help guide you to what an answer should be in such tests.

But in real life, when a compiler is spitting out a really obscure error message, that's a whole different skill to parse and understand. Heck, it's a whole different personality type to even want to follow the rabbit hole of cryptic compiler messages to find eventually the true issue.

I also knew people at school that had extremely high scores in the SAT, really good grades elsewhere but computer programming issues really befuddled them, and they were poor at retaining solutions to same.

Computer programming is this odd combination of standard academic learning combined with real world "well this is how it all actually works in practice" because in the end computer programmers have to make something actually work. That is I think the reason why great students can struggle with it yet, because they have not yet absorbed a lot of real-world problem solving skills outside the more narrow academic channel.

Re:Bent of mind

[mellon]

Oh for heaven's sake. If you aren't a computer scientist (and the above statement demonstrates that you are not), don't make assertions about computer science. And if you aren't a mathematician, don't make assertions about math. "Math is continuous?" That's about as meaningful as saying "pink is ten." What you are talking about is a difference in notation. Look up lambda calculus on wikipedia, and get back to us when you've cleaned up the brain cells that dribbled out your ears when your brain exploded. Don't even get me started on type theory...

Not really

[SuperKendall]

Programming is like cooking.

When your oven starts emitting cryptic messages because you put the spatula back in the wrong drawer, I might agree.

Moving to programming from cooking is a far vaster bridge than just "interest".

Now a car mechanic on the other hand, is used to dealing with the kind of malign electronic entities programmers face often.

Perhaps that in the end is the real reason we see so few women programmers, they are not as willing to fight virtual evils just for the sake of victory when complete.

Re:Not really

[Velex]

Umm... apparently if you mix your ingredients in the wrong order, you won't get a souffle. I didn't even know that until I watched a Nova documentary on Netflix about evolution. Apparently, cooking can be very technical, unless your definition of cooking is along the same lines as the women I work with: throw a bunch of meat, cheese, and maybe something green in a crock pot, wait four hours, and eat. Delicious, but not a souffle.

It sounds like you're engaging in the anthropomorphising fallacy I offered up to Greyfox a few minutes ago. It's a form of magical thinking. In order of the oven to emit a cryptic message because the spatula has been misplaced, it would require that either the oven, drawer, and spatula be somehow linked and programmed (maybe via RFID) or that there's something magical happening that's enabling the oven to care about where the spatula is.

Why is the computer so mean? Why can't it just tell me what's wrong instead of playing a game with me?

The real reason that women do not tend to become successful at programming, I think , is because they're told from day one that women are more social and more socially-oriented, and they're discouraged from developing logical thinking skills, often by older women (elementary teachers, daycare providers, even their own mothers). They watch sci-fi where computer interaction is social, and they watch computers deliver English words to them as though the computer understands English, and they conclude that programming must be a social problem. Pedantic, logical geeks can successfully communicate with computers, so maybe it just takes a certain kind of person to socially engage a computer and talk it into playing nice. So, a computer becomes something like their autistic son rather than a machine.

I'm not saying that women can't program. I have a female-model brain (whether I like it or not) and because I was encouraged to value logical problem solving at a young age over being social (because my ex-parents figured that there must have been some fundamentally male "stuff" about me because of my male reproductive system), I am now able to successfully get computers to do all kinds of things.

Let's face it. Women are more religious and more prone to social reasoning and magical thinking. It's just how older women brainwash girls to be. There's no other reason it has to be that way. When I tell a co-worker that "no, I can't make the computer do that because the program is closed-source" they hear "I'm in a bad mood today, and I don't like you, so I'm not going to cooperate." The logical and critical listening and thinking stills aren't there.

I don't know what to make of it, and it's become rather vexing to me as I get closer to gender transition. How can I possibly be a woman if women can't program, if it's even women who are the ones telling me that programming is a matter of body parts, that being a boy is the main quality I possess, rather than years of experience, education, and tinkering, that enables me to program? Furthermore, not to go off on too big of a rant, if I did have a female reproductive system, why would I have even bothered with all that "hard" stuff like math if, as a question of my personal survival and role in life, I could just have found a successful guy, got married, and had kids? Yet, as a man, how can I suggest to women who tell me they're baby machines and social enablers by virtue of their reproductive systems that they're wrong?

Who knows... anyway. I digress.

Re:Not really

[SuperKendall]

Apparently, cooking can be very technical

Following directions properly is not a technical skill. If someone got the ingredients out of order and blew a soufflé, they would not seek to find the root cause - they would follow the directions again, more carefully. Or give up.

In order of the oven to emit a cryptic message because the spatula has been misplaced, it would require that either the oven, drawer, and spatula be somehow linked and programmed (maybe via RFID) or that there's something magical happening that's enabling the oven to care about where the spatula is.

And yet similar seemingly utterly unrelated things end up mattering all the time in programming. It's not "magical thinking" so much as "decades of real world experience with real computers and development platforms".

Why is the computer so mean?

It is not mean. It is uncaring, and slightly evil.

The real reason that women do not tend to become successful at programming, I think , is because they're told from day one that women are more social and more socially-oriented

BULLSHIT. That nonsense has been peddled for decades now and I'll not have you blow another ten years of the industry repeating it. Many approaches have been tried to counteract this "programming" if you will that women have supposedly faced, with less than zero impact (the percentage of women in CS fields has fallen over the years from where it used to be).

Let's face it. Women are more religious and more prone to social reasoning and magical thinking.

If that were true they would be quite a bit better at programming, since the ability to create models in your head that are not real yet reflect what is happening is quite important to being a top programmer. Indeed I would say if anything MEN are quite a bit more able to live in self-made fantasy worlds than women, women seem generally more practically minded.

I do not think though that men or women have any difference in ability to be good programmers. I think possibly the way we approach teaching it may currently not be as good for women as men. Since we've tried and failed to "deprogram" women to make them think like men for many years to utter failure, we really should try something different.

To simplify the AC argument

[SuperKendall]

Creating an algorithm for a specific outcome is not like drooling on a rocket scientist, but describes cooking and programming.

Cooks are FOLLOWING the algorithm. Most cooks are in fact computers, not programmers.

Chiefs and programmers yes create algorithms to follow. But how many people create dishes from scratch often?

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[ryanw]

I think it requires a certain level of intelligence as a minimum. Nothing incredibly special but above average

There you have it. You think being able to program makes you special in some way or indicates that you're above average.

Here's the truth: Any idiot can write code. Hell, half of Slashdot taught themselves to program when they were between the ages of 8-13.

All it takes is the will to learn something new. It's no different than learning to work on cars. Do you think auto-mechanics have these same discussions? No. They're more emotionally stable, apparently, than the average developer.

Yeah, just about anyone can learn to write computer programs. Just like every who has ever learned to write code, they'll get better and better as they gain experience

Being able to write computer programs does not make you special. Get over yourself.

I think the problem is that people are trying to answer the question with a "one size fits all" approach to answering the question. Sure anybody who can make toast can program. But not everybody can make a toaster.

What I mean by that is you mentioned that the average joe mechanics don't have these conversations, but you have to consider that the average mechanic is not making the advancements or creating the car from pouring casts and machining the parts. They're assembling or disassembling. There is creativity in finding a problem with a car before taking the whole thing apart but otherwise it's fairly laid out.

Programmers, the big daddy programmers are special and unique. Just like the engineers who created a ferrari or any other major achievement. Any body can program, but not everybody has the patience, confidence or desire to take on massive tasks by themselves.

I have programmed for many years and I have never found a good workflow of working with a large team of developers to create a specific product. So far what I have seen is one or two highly motivated individuals to create the bulk of the product and the rest become break/fix contributors or continuing development after the product is well underway.

It's just what I have seen. And those examples could make me an exception not the rule but that's what I've seen.

Were projects like MySQL or PostgreSQL initially effects of one or two highly motivated and focused individuals? I know that unix was and about evey project I have ever seen at the early stages.

Being that these efforts are largely surrounded by individual contributors I think it enables these individual's to feel special and different. And to be honesty, anyone who takes on these massive feats and succeeds is unique and different. The rest are "programmers".

Re:Bent of mind

[gnasher719]

Computer science is, practically by definition, a subset of math. But there are many branches of mathematics out there, and being great at one doesn't necessarily mean a person is great at all of them.

Many years ago, someone found a proof for the "Four Colour Theorem" that was assumed to be correct for many years and then refuted. For an experienced programmer, it would have been obvious that the proof couldn't be trusted, and for a slightly clever experienced programmer, it would have been not difficult to demonstrate that the proof was wrong. Unfortunately, there were no experienced programmers in the 19th century, so the proof stood for a few years.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong

[Weaselmancer]

There you have it. You think being able to program makes you special in some way or indicates that you're above average.

Think of everyone you knew from high school. Now imagine each one of them piloting an airplane you are a passenger in. Not everyone is cut out for every job. Some jobs do require the right person to do the job correctly.

And if you think any idiot can write code you clearly haven't ever been given the task of maintaining some other idiot's code base before. If you really think anyone can do the job I recommend you peruse this site some.

Unlike brain surgery, you can be self taught and be good at programming. But just like brain surgery not everyone should be doing it.

Re:Sorry, but you are just plain wrong

[narcc]

You're being purposefully obtuse.

You know where that WTF code comes from? You, 10-20 years ago. You know, the inexperienced developer. If you have the opportunity, take a look at some code you wrote 5, 10, 15 years ago -- you'll be disgusted with yourself.

I've run in to quite a few of the idiots with whom I went to high-school. You know what? Some of them are surgeons. Some of them are pilots (or "airplane drivers"). Some of them are business owners or other business professionals.

Yes, and some of them are unskilled laborers -- the very category I would have put all of them in those many years ago. (When I was young, I thought myself exceptional as well. I chalk that up to youthful arrogance. I got over it. My self-worth is no longer defined by what I fancy myself as "good at".)

No, not everyone should write code or perform brain surgery. But that doesn't mean that most people are incapable of writing code or becoming skilled surgeons. Education and experience are what made the difference.

Programmers are not exceptional. You are not special because you're a programmer -- it's just a skill that you've learned and improved over time. Had you decided to pursue some other interest, you'd likely think yourself exceptional because of *that* skill.

Get over yourself. Really. It's not that impressive. Hell, most Slashdot users fancy themselves to be good programmers -- and many are better than you are or I am -- even a good number that are not or are no longer professional developers.

Re:Sorry, but you are just plain wrong

[Weaselmancer]

No, not everyone should write code or perform brain surgery.

My exact point. Now, who is being obtuse again?

But that doesn't mean that most people are incapable of writing code or becoming skilled surgeons.

Really? Most people can become surgeons? Are you sure about that? 3 out of 8 people that take the GED flunk it. You're saying that all these people need to do is knuckle down and study, and you'd happily let them inside your head with a scalpel?

Sure you would.

The simple fact is that some people are more capable than others for a given set of tasks. There isn't any "getting over" it. We are all different from one another.

And some jobs simply are not for some people. No matter how much you work out or how many pushups a day you do, you will never be an NFL quarterback. No matter how many books on quantum mechanics you read, you will never come up with a brilliant paradigm changing theory. And to a lesser degree, most of humanity no matter how hard they try would never be able to write a working and useable computer program.

Sorry, but that's how it is. If anyone could do it the market would be full of skilled programmers making Taco Bell wages. But it isn't.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[loom_weaver]

You can put anyone through music school but they aren't going to necessarily come out as a Mozart.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[narcc]

No, they won't. They will, however, be a competent and skilled musician.

The problem with developers who think themselves exceptional because they can program is that they all fancy themselves a Mozart.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Maxmin]

Here's the truth

"Listen up, maggots."

Being able to write computer programs does not make you special.

"You are not special."

Any idiot can write code.

"You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake."

Get over yourself.

"You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

-narcc (412956)

-Tyler Durden

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[BronsCon]

Boss' wife is the head of the art department. She's also the only designer who has the slightest grasp of coding and the only one allowed to try. She also knows when she's in over her head and usually comes to me to bail her out, which I don't mind doing because she usually realizes very quickly that she doesn't know how to pull something off and aske me before she's made a chore of it. She also takes interest in how it was done, so she can learn and improve, which I definitely appreciate. It also helps that she's the only designer at the company that will listen to my design ideas and give feedback other than "you're not a designer, go code something", and that two-way dialog has helped both of us expand out knowledge and abilities quite a bit. I'm starting to get a lot more open-ended work handed to me by her because she has grown to trust my design decisions, and I've started to reply to more of her requests for coding help with advice rather than "I can get to it next Wednesday", which allows her to get it done in the meantime and if she can't figure it out by the time I can get to it, then I'll do it.

That said, we go through a lot of designers; for one reason or another, they dont' last long. Some of them insist that they can code as well as the programmers, until they code themselves into a corner, publish their broken code, and take down a client's site, then try to pawn it off on one of the programmers because they said, per their project manager, they couldn't get to it untill tomorrow. Those designers are usually let go fairly quickly. The ones who leave usually get fed up with the fact that the company views them as peers of the programmers, rather than being one rung higher up the ladder. We've had one leave on good terms, who understood the importance of designers and programmers working side by side toward the same goal; he left to start his own design firm and still contract for us quite frequently.

It's amazing how efficient a small company can be when people in different departments drop their egos and view each other as peers. Likewise, it's amazing how quickly one's ego can get in the way of them keeping (or staying at) a job at a very laid back company that appreciates its employees.

Re:Obligatory

[BronsCon]

Actually, there are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who can't recognize a base-3 joke when the see it.

Re:Obligatory

[feedayeen]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That joke ceased being funny, 10 years ago...

Eh, I'm only twenty-four months behind the times then.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Smauler]

I've got no problem in saying I have no musical talent. I learnt the saxophone for 3 years when at school. By the end, I was still worse than most people after their first year, and I was never going to get very good at it.

Why would this be different with coding?

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[multimediavt]

I think it requires a certain level of intelligence as a minimum. Nothing incredibly special but above average and an interest in learning how to control that box. Interest can drive aptitude. But a low IQ is going to hamper working in, say, C. Object-oriented and the workings of inheritance in C++ are going to be hard to work with if you're plain dumb.

Documentation for libraries is not infrequently poor or even wrong and there seems to be some tacit assumption that programmers will work out how things work anyway, even if that just means knowing where to get help.

And it depends what you call "programming". If that includes designing solutions to complex or novel (hence no off-the-shelf libraries) solutions, then you have to design complex algorithms, which requires creativity. You need to be able to evaluate and select the right solution, too, something even very smart programmers get wrong.

AFAIK every professional, in every field I know, says almost the exact same thing, and you know what? The ones who say it are usually insecure about something. Anyone can learn. You did get one thing right, it takes interest, but more importantly it takes motivation (necessity) and inspiration. Unless there is something genetically or mentally wrong with you due to trauma, anyone can learn anything and apply it. We as a species are innately creative. It's why we made tools and developed technology as a species. Now, some people have genetic dispositions for learning things like syntax, morphology, and may even have strong mathematical skills. Awesome for them! They will learn things like programming, foreign languages, music theory, physics and chemistry quicker than others and may be able to develop improvisations quicker to address challenges when applying what is known, but as long as there are no issues with brain function, yes, anyone can learn whatever they want, even programming. Whether they will be able to turn it into a vocation is an entirely different issue unrelated to learning having more to do with the speed of applying what was learned relative to competitors in a market.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[arth1]

No one is born with a natural ability to write code or design car engines.

No, but a great many people have a natural inability. In the case of car engines, the resulting products will never hit the road. In the case of programs, they do, as we all witness every day.

Programming skill isn't the same as an ability to string small pieces of code together, any more than writing skill is the ability to touch type. It takes both perception andperspiration to be a decent programmer or decent author. Having an English literature grade may be useful, but it doesn't impart the ability to captivate your audience with your words. And taking programming classes won't hurt, but also won't make you come up with new elegant and efficient algorithms.
At best, you can become a codemonkey, who is to programming as an assembly man is to an engineer, or a typist is to an author.

Disclaimer: I am a senior sysadmin. I deal with both programmers and codemonkeys on a daily basis. In my long experience, there are hard-working and otherwise smart individuals who will never produce good code, and there are naturals who could, but are too lazy or careless. And there are a few who both have the ability and the drive to do so. Those are programmers, and I respect their profession.

According to the legends

[Have Brain Will Rent]

It was so long ago I cant remember who but one of (I think it was the first) Wirth, Hoare or Dijkstra said that the best programmers fell into one of two groups: those with good facility with math and those with good facility with their native language.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[somersault]

They will, however, be a competent and skilled musician.

No, they won't. Some people just don't have rhythm, or can't even tell when something is "in tune".

I think you have spent too much time around talented and driven people to realise how many people there are out there that just wouldn't be able to handle writing anything more than a trivial piece of software.

Programmers aren't "special" as in "better than others", but they are "different" in the same way that a lot of engineers are. More likely to be on the autistic spectrum for a start, which generally means they are more logical, focused and able to solve problems systematically.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[u38cg]

You didn't want to learn it and you never applied yourself to learning it. It's hardly surprising that you then didn't learn it.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[serviscope_minor]

Why would this be different with coding?

Quite so. This kind of comment seems to be missing from the thread.

Being good at programming does make you special in as much as you can sell that skill for money, and the better you are the more you can sell it for.

I don't think there's much wrong with many slashdot residents claiming to be skilled at programming. It is a tech forum after all.

I claim to be skilled at programming. There's nothing wrong with that and without arrogance I am happy claiming that most people (not most programmers) simply won't be as good as me because I have a natural aptitude and a natural drive which makes putting in the requisite 10,000 hours pretty much effortless.

But that's OK. I would bet that almost everyone is better than average at something.

I'm a terrible musician. I'm a terrible writer---I could never write a novel. I would suck as a politician. I can't dance. I would be a terrible administrator, organiser or logistics kind of person. I could never teach school below 16 and even then only good, motivated students, without flipping out or giving up. I probably could run a marathon if I trained, but I would never be good at it. I suck at chess despite a fair amount of playing. I'm a poor actor. I'm bad with kids.

I can never be good at any of those things above. I lack the innate talent and I lack the ability to make myself work at them enough.

I don't claim this makes me better than other people (except of course at programming) because clearly programming isn't the be-all and end-all of things.

So, I think that almost anyone could learn to assemble a few statements of code together. But programming is more than that, and I don't think many people could be programmers, much like most people can't be artists even though splatting down paint from a brush is trivial.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[serviscope_minor]

That anyone given enough time can write novel's.

Trues me, if I ever wrote a novel, it would suck really badly. However, I would use apostrophes properly.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[JasterBobaMereel]

There is nothing special about any profession, anyone can learn to do anything - Given that they don't have a disability that prevents them, and a minimal level of intelligence

But to be good enough at it to be employed doing it they need two things : Motivation, and experience (the second being dependent on the first)

What they may never be no matter how much experience and motivation they have is the innate ability to be better than average at the task ...

There is no getting over the fact that some people are better at some things than others, however the majority can do anything to at least a competent level

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[dvaldenaire]

From what i've seen, if " By the end, I was still worse than most people after their first year" ... basically it's not that you can't. Just that you are not passionate. And still...

I think i was HIGHLY passionate about playing music. I tried to learn. So after a few months i began to forget to train. Not deliberately, only i wake up in the morning and said : "oops i forgot to play yersteday evening". When it came to computer i never forgot... that, i think, make the difference.

The best in any field is the most OBSEDED about this field. They just can't think about something else. Hence Booby Fisher.

Saxophone amost same story

[Dareth]

I played saxophone in the band for 6 years. I have no special musical ability. I played alto sax with the regular band and tenor sax with the jazz ensemble. I was much better at the "jazz" than the regular band music. The difference was that I really enjoyed the jazz ensemble's music selection and I practiced it a couple hours a day, much to the dismay of my neighbors. If you find an interest and practice you can be okay. If someone has an interest in coding/programming they can practice and be okay even if minimally talented.

Understanding Mozart's Genius

[Dareth]

A snippet of the Wikipedia article on Mozart:

"In Rome, he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere twice in performance in the Sistine Chapel and wrote it out from memory, thus producing the first unauthorized copy of this closely guarded property of the Vatican."

A bit more than the average tone deaf person can accomplish. Sometime a trained musician would find difficult I would imagine.

Re:There is nothing special about programming

[Hythlodaeus]

half of Slashdot taught themselves to program when they were between the ages of 8-13

And that is exactly the kind of mind it takes to program. The good and bad programmers I've known divide fairly equivalently to those that taught themselves before high school and those who wrote their first code in CS 101.