Worse, there's no way to separate out the bad actors. All the major ad networks have served malware.
You are being irresponsible if you don't block ads.
It used to be you could tolerate ads to give your favorite websites extra revenue, but now it is too dangerous.
Maybe.
I can tell you I'm still working on reading through the first post you wrote today lol. A little more clarity would be helpful for people like me who are willing to read through.
This is the thing you always say.....historically, there have always been new jobs. Historically, the percentage of employed has always recovered. And yet for some reason, you are certain this time is different. It makes no sense for you to be this certain.
That's a better point than you had before, but you still haven't defined what "something" is that good programmers have, that mediocre programmers don't have lol.
My experience is the opposite, that it's something that can be taught.
Of course it does, but apparently you are too dense to see it.
Every 'hidden' job that hires a person reduces the (unemployed:job opening) ratio. If you can't see that, I don't know why you're talking. Probably just to confirm your own biases.
The irony is that I'd say the same to you...
I think you're completely wrong, totally 100% wrong...
Here's the difference......my point is backed up by thousands of years of history. At one point, the vast majority of people were farmers, and yet almost all those jobs are gone now. People found other jobs.
Your point backed up by science fiction, and at that, only some of the science fiction agrees with you.
I never thought I'd see the day where I missed cubicles, but that day has come. At least in a cubicle you can't smell if your neighbor has showered or not.
You can call functions from assembly, you know.
The biggest thing you lose with assembly is type safety, so you have to be extra careful that your objects are what you think they are.
Choose whatever language you want. None of you are even competitive with me when I choose C# under Visual Studio with a notebook full of pseudocode.
Most of the time spent programming is thinking (if it's not, you're spending too much of your time writing boiler-plate code). If you think it's the language that makes you a 'fast' programmer, then you are not good enough, and I will code circles around you with assembly and a decent macro library.
Unit tests are good but I doubt there is one single technique that will solve all your problems.
If you force your programmers to write unit tests, they will write lousy unit tests that don't catch any bugs.
If the programmers are trying to write better code, then they will think of ways to avoid bugs you didn't even think of.
I get your point, that there will always be natural variability in programmer ability.
It doesn't need to be as bad as now, though. There are a lot of simple things top programmers do that bottom programmers tend not to. For example:
* checking documentation (or actually reading the body of the function) to make sure the function does what you hope before calling it.
* when you change a line of code, double-check all places affected by that change code to make sure it won't cause problems.
I've found one of the biggest problems can be convincing programmers that they should even try to have less bugs. They will argue for hours that it's impossible to get rid of all bugs, so they shouldn't try to do better than now. I don't think I could ever hit home runs like David Ortiz but I'm sure if I did batting practice with him, I would get better than I am now.
just make it a rotating position so each person on the team gets a month at a time to fix whatever endemic company system issues bug them the most.
Good idea. I like the "rotating position" idea, and I've seen it used successfully with a new scrum master each month, but I've never thought of applying it at that situation.
I assume you're going off BLS numbers. Those are cool, but fail to take into account things like unadvertised jobs.
Poverty is structural, not individual.
The only way to help poverty is one person at a time. I've seen it myself, as homeless people are helped off the street. Blaming the system is no excuse for not helping people.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse, there's no way to separate out the bad actors. All the major ad networks have served malware.
You are being irresponsible if you don't block ads.
It used to be you could tolerate ads to give your favorite websites extra revenue, but now it is too dangerous.
most coders out there are abysmally bad. Bringing them up to "fair" is quite an accomplishment.
The sad truth.
Maybe.
I can tell you I'm still working on reading through the first post you wrote today lol. A little more clarity would be helpful for people like me who are willing to read through.
and it isn't going to recover.
This is the thing you always say.....historically, there have always been new jobs. Historically, the percentage of employed has always recovered. And yet for some reason, you are certain this time is different. It makes no sense for you to be this certain.
Then you should look at more recent history, because the trends say something else. Each time we get new technology, we lose some jobs in the process.
What numbers are you looking at? There are more jobs now in the US than in 2005.
That's a better point than you had before, but you still haven't defined what "something" is that good programmers have, that mediocre programmers don't have lol.
My experience is the opposite, that it's something that can be taught.
It doesn't much matter if nobody listens.
A lot of that is a problem of clarity of writing.
That's why you just skip the pundits, activists, and talking heads by default.
Stick with history and experts, and you'll have better results.
Doesn't really work, doesn't change the argument.
Of course it does, but apparently you are too dense to see it.
Every 'hidden' job that hires a person reduces the (unemployed:job opening) ratio. If you can't see that, I don't know why you're talking. Probably just to confirm your own biases.
True, true, I won't complain if you do.
The irony is that I'd say the same to you... I think you're completely wrong, totally 100% wrong...
Here's the difference......my point is backed up by thousands of years of history. At one point, the vast majority of people were farmers, and yet almost all those jobs are gone now. People found other jobs.
Your point backed up by science fiction, and at that, only some of the science fiction agrees with you.
Actually, you cannot make the less efficient engineers as efficient as the most efficient ones.
Why not? I've spent plenty of time working to make programmers more efficient.
It is not something they learned that makes them exceptional, it is who they are.
It is "something?" What is "something?" If you can not even say what "something" is, then how can you even claim that it can't be taught?
I never thought I'd see the day where I missed cubicles, but that day has come. At least in a cubicle you can't smell if your neighbor has showered or not.
There is a future you want to see, and you are bending the facts to match the future you want to see. You're not thinking clearly because of that.
I doubt there are macros for webservices.
You can call functions from assembly, you know.
The biggest thing you lose with assembly is type safety, so you have to be extra careful that your objects are what you think they are.
Studying the history, reading and evaluating the various ... experts.... output is hard.
It's also really, really fun, once you get the hang of it.
The question you should be asking is, how to rally people [who make decisions] behind your politics.
Well said
Choose whatever language you want. None of you are even competitive with me when I choose C# under Visual Studio with a notebook full of pseudocode.
Most of the time spent programming is thinking (if it's not, you're spending too much of your time writing boiler-plate code). If you think it's the language that makes you a 'fast' programmer, then you are not good enough, and I will code circles around you with assembly and a decent macro library.
Unit tests are good but I doubt there is one single technique that will solve all your problems.
If you force your programmers to write unit tests, they will write lousy unit tests that don't catch any bugs.
If the programmers are trying to write better code, then they will think of ways to avoid bugs you didn't even think of.
I get your point, that there will always be natural variability in programmer ability.
It doesn't need to be as bad as now, though. There are a lot of simple things top programmers do that bottom programmers tend not to. For example:
* checking documentation (or actually reading the body of the function) to make sure the function does what you hope before calling it.
* when you change a line of code, double-check all places affected by that change code to make sure it won't cause problems.
I've found one of the biggest problems can be convincing programmers that they should even try to have less bugs. They will argue for hours that it's impossible to get rid of all bugs, so they shouldn't try to do better than now. I don't think I could ever hit home runs like David Ortiz but I'm sure if I did batting practice with him, I would get better than I am now.
Should we take you seriously?
You don't have to lol, up to you.
It's clear you didn't bother to RTFA.
The article doesn't say much.......just a few quotes, for me it's hard to get a real idea of what the speaker was trying to convey.
just make it a rotating position so each person on the team gets a month at a time to fix whatever endemic company system issues bug them the most.
Good idea. I like the "rotating position" idea, and I've seen it used successfully with a new scrum master each month, but I've never thought of applying it at that situation.
People do listen to Twitter about software engineering. Twitter pretty much single-handedly killed the Ruby web development trend.
They also have software they build for their customers......tools for managing ad campaigns, recognizing target demographics, etc.
Poverty is structural, not individual.
The only way to help poverty is one person at a time. I've seen it myself, as homeless people are helped off the street. Blaming the system is no excuse for not helping people.