People with these type of salaries are usually managers and don’t really code that much anymore. I don’t really get your point there.
Also could you explain what an expert for you really is?
I also know devs who make that kind of money, but they are the exception not the norm.
I have already watched that video and 10k hours is not that much. That’s just 5h a day for 5.5 years.
I also can immediately recognize undefined behavior in C++, and I have at most 2 years of experience.
Let me tell you for someone who has been programming for more than a decade, all the languages are the same. It’s not hard to become an expert in a different langauge once you have the basics down.
The 10k hours claim (popularized by Gladwell) is also an absurd overreach on what the research actually was or claimed to be. Read Peak by K Anders Ericsson instead of Gladwell’s outliers and you get a very different presentation of what the research says from one of the researchers.
They were studying a very specific type of rote learning with a specific type of training (because being classically trained in violin is that standardized). The number of hours trained to reach expert status was not identical between practitioners. He made absolutely zero claims about the amount of time needed to learn different skills that fit the same pattern, and more importantly, really didn’t make such claims about entirely different and unrelated types of learning like code that aren’t formalized.
Gladwell’s book was straight anecdote with no rigor.
Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what’s actually there. I don’t think it’s malicious, and I don’t hate him as a writer, but he’s much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they’re not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you’re going to get in trouble.
The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it’s flashy) and be an expert isn’t. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you’re constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.
I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They’re not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they’re still pretty accessible and don’t assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there’s still anecdotes).
You haven’t proven shit. Just because those two aren’t on her stackoverflow doesn’t mean she doesn’t know them. You really have no concept of how evidence and proof work.
No, you claimed that, over and over and over, with no evidence. You linked a video about how people generally become masters at things, argued she (probably) hasn’t put in that amount of time (despite evidence to the contrary), then you made some equally unsubstantiated claims about the exact amount of years it supposedly takes to learn java and c++, and again argued (despite evidence to the contrary) that she hasn’t had to time to learn those either.
Well now put in 10h a day and you are an expert in half the time. Now also consider that languages are quite similar to each other and you could become an expert in less than 10k hours. So she being an expert in more than 2 languages doesn’t sound so unreasonable anymore, right?
Fyi DMs on lemmy don’t have the best privacy. Don’t think of them as private.
But you sure like to make the big claims despite your convenient issue with providing anything to back them up. Maybe don’t act like a rude gatekeeping “expert” if you aren’t even willing to provide credentials.
I’ve had to use at least 5 different languages at work. Its not uncommon when you have a large, diverse, OLD codebase. We had scripts in Perl and python, my area of expertise was in Java, and most of the codebase was in C and C++.
You are just moving the goalpost… Before you said “So yeah, “hello world” and loops it’s.” Claiming she was basically a beginner or hobbyist. Now you are arguing she isn’t an “expert” and define expert at the absolute far right side of the bell curve. Why does it matter to you so much that she not get recognition for her work?
No, sorry, prove you are an “expert in programming”. You won’t read her stackoverflow page or make the effort to read and judge any of the evidence you have been sent on the matter, so I will extend no courtesy to you as far as trusting your qualifications. Prove it.
As far as I’m concerned you are a know-nothing troll trying to sound smart and put people down. Prove otherwise.
People with these type of salaries are usually managers and don’t really code that much anymore. I don’t really get your point there. Also could you explain what an expert for you really is?
deleted by creator
I also know devs who make that kind of money, but they are the exception not the norm.
I have already watched that video and 10k hours is not that much. That’s just 5h a day for 5.5 years. I also can immediately recognize undefined behavior in C++, and I have at most 2 years of experience. Let me tell you for someone who has been programming for more than a decade, all the languages are the same. It’s not hard to become an expert in a different langauge once you have the basics down.
The 10k hours claim (popularized by Gladwell) is also an absurd overreach on what the research actually was or claimed to be. Read Peak by K Anders Ericsson instead of Gladwell’s outliers and you get a very different presentation of what the research says from one of the researchers.
They were studying a very specific type of rote learning with a specific type of training (because being classically trained in violin is that standardized). The number of hours trained to reach expert status was not identical between practitioners. He made absolutely zero claims about the amount of time needed to learn different skills that fit the same pattern, and more importantly, really didn’t make such claims about entirely different and unrelated types of learning like code that aren’t formalized.
Gladwell’s book was straight anecdote with no rigor.
Thanks for pointing this out. I didn’t question the 10k hours at all.
Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what’s actually there. I don’t think it’s malicious, and I don’t hate him as a writer, but he’s much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they’re not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you’re going to get in trouble.
The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it’s flashy) and be an expert isn’t. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you’re constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.
I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They’re not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they’re still pretty accessible and don’t assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there’s still anecdotes).
deleted by creator
But when people showed you she has been programming since she was 12 and absolutely has had the time to put in, you just don’t believe it.
deleted by creator
You haven’t proven shit. Just because those two aren’t on her stackoverflow doesn’t mean she doesn’t know them. You really have no concept of how evidence and proof work.
deleted by creator
No, you claimed that, over and over and over, with no evidence. You linked a video about how people generally become masters at things, argued she (probably) hasn’t put in that amount of time (despite evidence to the contrary), then you made some equally unsubstantiated claims about the exact amount of years it supposedly takes to learn java and c++, and again argued (despite evidence to the contrary) that she hasn’t had to time to learn those either.
Well now put in 10h a day and you are an expert in half the time. Now also consider that languages are quite similar to each other and you could become an expert in less than 10k hours. So she being an expert in more than 2 languages doesn’t sound so unreasonable anymore, right?
deleted by creator
Can I ask you what your background is in programming/computer science?
deleted by creator
Fyi DMs on lemmy don’t have the best privacy. Don’t think of them as private.
But you sure like to make the big claims despite your convenient issue with providing anything to back them up. Maybe don’t act like a rude gatekeeping “expert” if you aren’t even willing to provide credentials.
I’ve had to use at least 5 different languages at work. Its not uncommon when you have a large, diverse, OLD codebase. We had scripts in Perl and python, my area of expertise was in Java, and most of the codebase was in C and C++.
You are just moving the goalpost… Before you said “So yeah, “hello world” and loops it’s.” Claiming she was basically a beginner or hobbyist. Now you are arguing she isn’t an “expert” and define expert at the absolute far right side of the bell curve. Why does it matter to you so much that she not get recognition for her work?
deleted by creator
No, sorry, prove you are an “expert in programming”. You won’t read her stackoverflow page or make the effort to read and judge any of the evidence you have been sent on the matter, so I will extend no courtesy to you as far as trusting your qualifications. Prove it.
As far as I’m concerned you are a know-nothing troll trying to sound smart and put people down. Prove otherwise.
deleted by creator
Prove you have been in this field, for even 5 minutes. Where is your stackoverflow page?
deleted by creator
I’m just doing to you what you are doing to her. Did it get through? Is it annoying to deal with your own bullshit?