|
Maybe I would hire some without talent, but without passion to the job...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
{TODO: Insert humorous comparison to QA here...}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You do need talent and some passion, but not to such ludicrous extents as wanted in today's world. You don't need to have God-like knowledge of all platforms nor do you need to live, eat, and breathe programming passion. A working knowledge of the basics and a willingness to learn new things will get you farther than knowing everything about each system and language (and compiler, runtime, standard library, API, and so on).
Programmers that hold themselves to such high standards scare off people who seriously want to become a developer. There are examples on every site, here on CP, on StackOverflow, and many other places. Some sites are working on keeping such things to a minimum, and others aren't really doing anything.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, there's such a thing as too much. And no matter what that thing is, the "too much" makes it a bad thing.
However, I see the "passion" for programming as the "want" of learning something more. The "passionless" only ever want to learn as much as needed so they don't get fired, and that is not a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Living life well requires talent and passion. Programming is no exception. If you are the exception, then you're dead.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Passion shouldn't be required but for any profession if you want someone to become good at what they do you need some sort of interest and drive.
You don't become a mechanic if you are a fanatic environmentalist which hates everything fossil based. But as long as you don't mind getting your hands dirty you don't need to know every different motor sport and name every driver, every car etc..
|
|
|
|
|
In my view, the required list of attributes is as follows (in descending order of priority):
- Integrity
- Ability to pay attention to small details
- Intelligence
- Knowledge of standard algorithms and their trade-offs (time, space, complexity, etc.)
- Knowledge of the tool sets to be used
- A moderate amount of obsessive-compulsiveness (as in "I'm gonna fix this bug if it's the last thing I do")
Learning programming languages and libraries isn't difficult for anyone with the above skills, and as long as he/she delivers good-quality code within the deadline - I couldn't care less whether they are "passionate" about their work.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
This is always a situation of someone wanting to be in a profession due to monetary gains or bragging rights. "Why do I need to be good at it?" "Why should I learn more?" etc. etc. etc.
Sure sign that they should not actually be in that particular profession. And no, it's not limited to programming. I'm also in the Architecture industry (the construction kind), and I've seen the same with Architects who don't have a passion for designing a "better" building, or worse, cannot envision the 2D drawings into a 3D shape. Usually you see them "design" something on plan, then needing it to be modeled (by someone else) into a 3D virtual building before they see that the bunch of lines they scribbled on paper cannot actually work, then keeping at doing it until finally they hit on something which isn't un-build-able (usually by accident)...  And then comes the part where all their buildings look the exact same ... i.e. once they've finally hit on such accident, they keep doing it that way since last time it "worked".
And this is what I have found in programming. Someone without the passion will not even attempt to try and be "better" or make their programs better from last time round, they'd only ever do the minimum required for the project. And thus also be in that situation of (I'm going to be found out and fired) every time they're even slightly outside their comfort zone, i.e. only "learning" (at best) when forced to. While someone with passion would see such situations as a challenge and actually seek them out. Sure you can hit the same keys and regurgitate the same old programs, but that just makes you a one dimensional typist, not a programmer.
Talent is perhaps not as important, though it does save a lot of time at the start. E.g. it takes a long while for someone to come to grips with the logical thought processes involved in changing a problem into a set of tasks for a computer to handle. But it is "learn-able", just takes time for someone who hasn't done similar before or already think in that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, with moderation.
Talent is a huge help for the programmer since it allows to quicken many steps through intuition rather than careful/long/boring thinking, leaving more time for the real thinking.
Passion is needed because programming often becomes really frustrating, so either you're stubborn or you're passionate, otherwise you give up (and ask gimmecodezzz in QA).
Still untalented but clever/stubborn/passionate programmers can be valid coworkers, sometimes they seem to be a little "thick" but they get the work done - or they try the "guru" tricks read in cheap books increasing difficulty of an order od magnitude.
Talented but lazy or non passionate are usually innovators, since they want too get the job done and know how but don't want to spend their lives on it - their work is usually dirty but reliable for the given specifications.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
Can't view the website. Let Jacob Thornton know there is 'Element not found' js error. Back to work!
modified 19-May-16 11:45am.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting losers is a really weird way to frame an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Does the author work at my last company along with that LinkedIn fellow?
|
|
|
|
|
For the past 10 years with the advent of C++11, and before that its respective initiatives (TR1, Boost), there was a big movement within the C++ development community towards moving projects to the new standard: Modern C++. Too old. Too old to begin the innovation.
modified 18-May-16 14:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
This links to what is basically an advertisement for the Google Gboard. Probably not what you intended...
'PLAN' is NOT one of those four-letter words.
'When money talks, nobody listens to the customer anymore.'
|
|
|
|
|
Yup already in there fixing it
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
C++11 is Modern C++?
The author has no credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft's Windows 7 SP1 convenience rollup isn't Service Pack 2 for Windows 7, but it might be the next best thing. Enjoy your update as though it were your last.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this another try to install win10?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad. I don't use one due to lack of apps (like everyone else), but I loved the interface. I would have used them if I could get my apps.
Also, I like coding for them FAR more than for Android.
|
|
|
|
|
Not yet! I just bought one! :P
|
|
|
|
|
Why would Foxconn buy this? If not to make some Windows Phone themselves... Otherwise they wouldn't really need it, do they?
|
|
|
|
|
After taking down the controversial DevShare program in early February, the new owners of popular software repository, SourceForge, have begun scanning all projects it hosts for malware in an attempt to regain trust that was lost by dice holdings, the site’s previous owners. New owners, new focus.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
