Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewvc | Hacker News Reader

This is someone's (very arbitrary) opinion in a grid. I hope you don't actually interview people. Figuring out someone's skill level is a soft science; it takes months after a hire to really know where someone is.

Some people I know are great at fixing bugs but have narrow language experience. They're damn valuable. Others integrate well into teams and provide great product feedback. Where's that on here?

Experience isn't measured in years but in knowledge gained. You really start seeing it 4-5 years in, some people move forward, some don't.

There are so many holes in this. I feel like whoever wrote this has a strong desire to reduce people to a number. It's not only terrible, it's a great way to fool yourself.

View on HN

Some people have 10 years of experience. Others have 1 year of experience 10 times.

What a great quote. I wonder where it came from.

David Courtwright used a slightly different version of it to describe the Vietnam war: "we were not in Vietnam for 10 years, but for one year 10 times."

Here you are: http://ask.metafilter.com/62762/What-is-the-source-of-this-q...

I read that; the answer seems to be "we're not sure".

This is a quote I use very often! As with many other great quotes, I think it originates in English from Trevanian's Shibumi (when Otake-san, the Go master is giving his final teaching to Nicholai):

Do not fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft while in fact he has had only one year of experience — twenty times.

Most probably Trevanian has drawn upon some other source, tough I've never been able to track that.

If you haven't read this fantastic book I strongly recommend it.

My father said this to me before 1979.

It's an ok potboiler that relies ever-more improbable plot devices.

It's also impossibly incorrect politically -- so transparently so that I think it's essentially harmless. But if you don't understand why some people would feel that why you really should watch your step.

Fabulous book. The commentary on the west rings truer the older I get.

I believe the origin is in medicine. My wife introduced the idea too me 10 years ago. In medical practice, watch out for the doctor who's been practicing the same year of medicine over and over and over.

I've heard it from one of the karate instructors I've corresponded with (although in that context it was less of a dismissive phrase and more a cautionary one for our own training). Regardless of the origin, it's a good one.

The latter one must be an expert on the few things they do.

On the contrary, it is useful to have a comprehensive, substantive measure of technical skills. Having one does not preclude additional assessments, as you assume. I have been continually disappointed with the lack of extensiveness in technical interviews, as a candidate, but also as an interviewer when reviewing other interviewer assessments of potential candidates. I have yet to meet a programmer who doesn't believe they are very good at what they do and I believe this problem is due in large part to the shoot-from-the-hip approach that the industry takes at the interview stage.

The problem is that you're relying on interviews to hire someone who will hopefully work with you for years to come. Would you interview and pick your wife or husband in one day? Would a table like the above help?

This answer totally made my day. Excellent analogy.

I must've read this very differently. I rolled my eyes and skipped over the experience table. I've seen one too many programmers with literally decades of experience but still without a clue.

But the rest… I assume it's a matrix for a reason. Someone isn't a level log(n) programming mage, but he or she might be a level log(n) data structure and algorithm wielder, a level n^2 systems programming apprentice, and a level n requirements gatherer, or some other combination of strengths and weaknesses. It's still a lossy abstraction, but significantly less so taken that way.

If its title swapped 'Programmer Competency Matrix' with 'Computer Science Competency Matrix' it would make a lot more sense. Some of the level 3 competency ratings have little relevance in the real world.

Everyone in the programming world knows programmers (often intelligent, educated, and experienced ones) get caught up in silly details of perfecting their code and are completely unproductive without an experienced manager (or tutor) guiding them. I can't help but laugh when a bushy tailed non-programmer steps in, and produces something quickly and effectively using seemly simple tools.

I'd just like to see a list of some things that should be minimum / recommended concepts that every programmer should know to be good at their craft.

I'm ~40 and going back for a CS degree isn't very appealing / practical. But if I knew what things to study... I could start on my own.

I'm advanced in my career, but its been mostly advanced level support and system administration work. I want to get into programming.

I say all that to make the point that a degree track isn't the best fit for me.

I'm 30, and have a computer science degree, and am log(n) on the chart in many areas (but certainly not all). In almost all cases, the relevant experience came from me trying to do a side project that required knowledge I didn't have. I can install a database because I had to. I can program in functional languages because I was reading about them and I tried to use one for a side project.

The side projects don't even have to lead anywhere, but they get you to the point where you can say "ya, I can write a node.js server" and then you can do it on the job, and a few years later you're an expert.

This is definitely not the only way to acquire skills. I'm sure some people dig through books, or just focus on doing their job and still grow. But for me, side projects have always been the driving force.

I was a lifer Sysadmin until I was 40 and learned Ruby on Rails. I've always had an unprovable theory that Sysadmin always results in a fork in the career path: management or programming, and I didn't see myself in management. I'm self-taught and was accepted for Startup School this year, and while I'm not quite where I want to be, I think programming and creating with an awareness of the system side of things is a better direction for me to go in.

You can also always program on the side if you want to maintain the stability of an established career.

Not only is this arbitrary, it is also old, and a copy from another site. From the discussion we had on this in 2009:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1022394

It's a good list of skills. I don't find them all so linear, I'm sure most of us have bits and pieces from all of the squares, even though it says explicitly that you have to know all of the proceeding skills in order to move to the next column.

I can't help thinking when I read these lists, though, that they probably favor the author's particular skill-set and experience. Maybe not necessarily the author's current state, but perhaps where they'd like to go or what skills they aspire to have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com