Programming involves a lot of things, but ultimately it requires writing. If the programmer can't write well in a language they've used all their life, what does that say? Do they ignore punctuation, grammar, and spelling? What does it mean if they can't be bothered with details?
Even better would be to have them write a poem in iambic pentameter, explaining to them what that is if necessary. Languages already impose a certain discipline, but how does the programmer react to extra disciplines? Does she only want to write in free verse? Ever tried to read an undisciplined programmer's spaghetti code?
To be fair, this works against those whose native language isn't English, but that's the language I communicate in. For such people, a similar test might be to give them a syntax diagram of a computer language they don't know and ask them to write something in it.
These days, dragging a control onto a form and hooking up the events is considered programming. Re-usable objects are Good Things, but it feels more and more like connect-the-dots rather than programming. I'm more interested in the person who wrote the control than in the person who can drag it around.
The other test I give programmers is to have them copy a sheet of paper with sixteen rows of random sixteen-bit binary numbers. At least you find out the ones who pay attention to detail and check their work, both of which are important for programmers.
Think of this in terms of an open society versus a closed and/or repressive one. Which would you rather live in?
Yes, airing your dirty laundry in public doesn't look cool to an outsider. It's probably the biggest thing people in foreign countries don't get about the U.S. They see all these protests and arguments right out in the open and fail to understand how much commonality is underlying everything. Then along comes something like Sept. 11 and they're astonished when all these fractious people suddenly look very united and act together.
Public courtrooms, public lawmaking, public education, and freedom of expression are the cornerstones of open society. I'd rather have public arguments and discussions, like this one between Rik and Linus, no matter how ungraceful such arguments might appear, than the Potemkin Village of Microsoft, where everything looks wonderful on the outside but is hiding a lot of problems when you get closer.
Yes, Linus is somewhat akin to a benevolent dictator. Yes, he's no computer scientist. On the other hand, it's his baby, and I see no signs he's stopped caring for it. Perhaps the comparison to a parent is more apt. Even courts are reluctant to intrude in such relationships unless the parent's actions are particularly reprehensible. If Rik's open airing of his problems getting patches in the tree cause Linus to change his behavior a little, then it's worth the so-called bad PR.
I'll take the open society over the closed and repressive one any day. If someone you deal with doesn't understand why, educate them. Ask them why they're committing their 24/7 operations to Microsoft software that looks pretty on the outside, but which they have no way of examining for hidden flaws, in spite of the security and reliability problems in the past. Ask them why Microsoft has taken so long to fully implement what Unix has done for decades. Ask them which SUV they'd rather drive: the brand-new one from a manufacturer who's still figuring out four-wheel drive, or the one from the manufacturer who's been doing four-wheel drive for decades.
Sometimes people need a period of education before they support the revolution.
Am I the only one who's noticed that the Harry Potter books incorrectly use the word "enervate" as if it means a cross between "energize" and "activate"? The correct meaning of "enervate" is "to debilitate; to weaken; to deplete". Look it up. An ENERVATE spell should be something the bad guys use to rob the strength from the good guys. That's not how J.K. uses it.
So now we have tens of millions of English-speaking kids learning the incorrect usage of a perfectly good word.
It seems to me an author of children's books should at least get the language right. I've heard that J.K. refuses to have a copy editor. If so, a lot of English teachers and students are going to pay the price for her lack of humility.
Slashdot Mirror
Programming involves a lot of things, but ultimately it requires writing. If the programmer can't write well in a language they've used all their life, what does that say? Do they ignore punctuation, grammar, and spelling? What does it mean if they can't be bothered with details?
Even better would be to have them write a poem in iambic pentameter, explaining to them what that is if necessary. Languages already impose a certain discipline, but how does the programmer react to extra disciplines? Does she only want to write in free verse? Ever tried to read an undisciplined programmer's spaghetti code?
To be fair, this works against those whose native language isn't English, but that's the language I communicate in. For such people, a similar test might be to give them a syntax diagram of a computer language they don't know and ask them to write something in it.
These days, dragging a control onto a form and hooking up the events is considered programming. Re-usable objects are Good Things, but it feels more and more like connect-the-dots rather than programming. I'm more interested in the person who wrote the control than in the person who can drag it around.
The other test I give programmers is to have them copy a sheet of paper with sixteen rows of random sixteen-bit binary numbers. At least you find out the ones who pay attention to detail and check their work, both of which are important for programmers.
Yes, airing your dirty laundry in public doesn't look cool to an outsider. It's probably the biggest thing people in foreign countries don't get about the U.S. They see all these protests and arguments right out in the open and fail to understand how much commonality is underlying everything. Then along comes something like Sept. 11 and they're astonished when all these fractious people suddenly look very united and act together.
Public courtrooms, public lawmaking, public education, and freedom of expression are the cornerstones of open society. I'd rather have public arguments and discussions, like this one between Rik and Linus, no matter how ungraceful such arguments might appear, than the Potemkin Village of Microsoft, where everything looks wonderful on the outside but is hiding a lot of problems when you get closer.
Yes, Linus is somewhat akin to a benevolent dictator. Yes, he's no computer scientist. On the other hand, it's his baby, and I see no signs he's stopped caring for it. Perhaps the comparison to a parent is more apt. Even courts are reluctant to intrude in such relationships unless the parent's actions are particularly reprehensible. If Rik's open airing of his problems getting patches in the tree cause Linus to change his behavior a little, then it's worth the so-called bad PR.
I'll take the open society over the closed and repressive one any day. If someone you deal with doesn't understand why, educate them. Ask them why they're committing their 24/7 operations to Microsoft software that looks pretty on the outside, but which they have no way of examining for hidden flaws, in spite of the security and reliability problems in the past. Ask them why Microsoft has taken so long to fully implement what Unix has done for decades. Ask them which SUV they'd rather drive: the brand-new one from a manufacturer who's still figuring out four-wheel drive, or the one from the manufacturer who's been doing four-wheel drive for decades.
Sometimes people need a period of education before they support the revolution.
So now we have tens of millions of English-speaking kids learning the incorrect usage of a perfectly good word.
It seems to me an author of children's books should at least get the language right. I've heard that J.K. refuses to have a copy editor. If so, a lot of English teachers and students are going to pay the price for her lack of humility.