On Dec 16, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Jan E. <lists / ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> @ Florian:
>=20
> It seems we have a very different understanding of being a programmer.
> Somebody who can do basic tasks within a team that looks after him is =
a
> code monkey to me, not a programmer. Yeah, you can probably become a
> decent code monkey in a few months. Many school kids today don't even
> have to be taught the basics, because they've already published =
projects
> on GitHub, maybe done some small jobs etc.

I never wrote that it makes you a fully-fledged programmer - but it can =
make
you fit for working in a company. Many companies pass by perfectly good=20=

talent because of exactly that mindset.

Also, the differentiation between "code monkey" and "programmer" on =
skill
is maybe the most snobbish thing I heard in a while, if not actively =
harmful.

Granted: there is a difference between someone that just copy and pastes
code and someone that applies skills. But if you apply programming =
skills
in a creative way - how meager they may be, you are nevertheless a=20
programmer - just not a good one (yet).

> But that doesn't make them programmers! There's a big difference
> between, say, writing an SQL query that kind of works -- and being =
able
> to understand an execution plan and write a query that won't break =
down
> even if thousands of customers visit the page simulatenously. A
> programmer to me is somebody who actually knows what he's doing and =
can
> come up with workable solutions in a short amount of time. And that's
> something you won't learn in a few weeks.

I've seen people with zero knowledge in either algebra and SQL doing =
query
optimization perfectly well _because they saw the need and learned what =
they
had to learn_. It took them long, but hey! Taking the right actions and =
learning=20
what you need for it is what makes a programmer, not your skill level.

And yes: I would never let such a person work alone, but with more =
experienced
supervision, you can see a lot of awesome things happening.

> Of course you don't necessarily need formal education. But it does =
help
> to come down to earth and get *real* knowledge and experience as =
opposed
> to "Hey, I've read some PHP tutorials, I'm a web developer now!".

We're not talking about "some guy who read some tutorials after =
midnight",
but taking a course for a quarter of a year. (assuming that the course =
is good)

> It's like with any other serious job: I'm sure there are many great
> self-taught  architects out there. But when you hire one, you =
*probably*
> want him to have an actual diploma and not just a certificate from
> "Learn statics in only 1 week!".

Now you are mingeling topics: I agree with you that a course certificate
does not give you any more credibility in the hiring process. I just =
don't
agree with the premise that such a course can only yield unusable
personnel. Even self-teching yields perfectly good people from time to =
time,
so how can a good=20

> I'm not saying that those Flatiron courses are useless. I don't know
> them. But I think they give a a very wrong impression of what you can =
do=20
> with your knowledge. What kind of jobs will that be when all you need =
is=20
> a few weeks of training?

As I said: basic jobs with an opportunity to improve. Lets face it: Many =
companies
are searching for people to make even the most miniscule tasks. At =
worst, they
allow very basic tasks to be done by expensive=20=