Expectations - Expert Beginners
This thread follows on from one of the posts in the thread "Expectations": https://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/285833/#msg1243092
Thank you for your pointer to the article: How Developers Stop Learning: Rise of the Expert Beginner
It does fit in with my increasing suspicion that these days some developers are spending less time than they should on learning their craft, relying too much on Internet searches.
I also think that the overall quality of information on the web is going down and down, which only compounds the issue.
With the increasing use of AI tools, which draws on the Internet, I fear that things can only get worse!
Or am I getting pessimistic as I age?
Andy
| George PlusPlus wrote: |
|---|
| But then I'm not even an "expert beginner" ... https://daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of-the-expert-beginner/ |
Thank you for your pointer to the article: How Developers Stop Learning: Rise of the Expert Beginner
It does fit in with my increasing suspicion that these days some developers are spending less time than they should on learning their craft, relying too much on Internet searches.
I also think that the overall quality of information on the web is going down and down, which only compounds the issue.
With the increasing use of AI tools, which draws on the Internet, I fear that things can only get worse!
Or am I getting pessimistic as I age?
Andy
Last edited on
| Or am I getting pessimistic as I age? |
IMO, no.
| overall quality of information on the web is going down and down |
You need to be selective and 'knowledgeable' when obtaining coding info from the web. I've come across loads of web C++ coding resources to which I've said 'yuk'! Typically these are several years old that relate to how C++ was back then, not 'modern' C++.
| some developers are spending less time than they should on learning their craft |
If you are a C++ developer then a continuous part of your life is to keep up-to-date with the latest C++ standards/coding practice etc. The C++ standard changes every 3 years. Not only should you know the latest C++ standard but you also need to become familiar with the usage of its facilities - especially the library. If someone doesn't want this then perhaps they should change languages to say Cobol where there has been only 4 new standards in about 40 years!
Last edited on
The more the tools to cruft code automates the process the less people understand the process.
Example: creating Windows GUI apps. Does one use the Desktop SDK in all of its verbose glory or a framework like MFC, .NET or the like?
Another piss-poor web resource trend are the "programming challenge" sites. Speed vs. quality IMO. It seems the judges at those sites are somewhat clueless about good C++ programming themselves as well.
+---+
C++ has a VERY steep learning curve. And most books and tutorial websites seemingly teach C++ as if it is just a "better C". A better way to teach is showing students/learners early on core C++ features such as strings and containers (vectors) before circling back and showing arrays and C-style strings.
Professional programmers need to understand legacy code, but hobbling them by teaching IMO outdated methods is counterproductive to getting a solid understanding of the language.
Example: creating Windows GUI apps. Does one use the Desktop SDK in all of its verbose glory or a framework like MFC, .NET or the like?
Another piss-poor web resource trend are the "programming challenge" sites. Speed vs. quality IMO. It seems the judges at those sites are somewhat clueless about good C++ programming themselves as well.
+---+
C++ has a VERY steep learning curve. And most books and tutorial websites seemingly teach C++ as if it is just a "better C". A better way to teach is showing students/learners early on core C++ features such as strings and containers (vectors) before circling back and showing arrays and C-style strings.
Professional programmers need to understand legacy code, but hobbling them by teaching IMO outdated methods is counterproductive to getting a solid understanding of the language.
coding sites don't judge, they time your code and bombard it with edge cases. If it gets all the right answers, it will then usually rank you based off your speed.
some of these kinds of things can be backfed the answers in a lookup table :) and I am not sure if the code/bot that grades it can tell or no. I know that worked a couple of years back when I helped someone fighting their school's grading bot .. we did the code for real (not via lookup table), but we 'cheated' to get the inputs out of it to figure out what edge case he had missed. GIGO and all that.
some of these kinds of things can be backfed the answers in a lookup table :) and I am not sure if the code/bot that grades it can tell or no. I know that worked a couple of years back when I helped someone fighting their school's grading bot .. we did the code for real (not via lookup table), but we 'cheated' to get the inputs out of it to figure out what edge case he had missed. GIGO and all that.
| coding sites don't judge |
The sites don't use what would be considered conventional criteria, but timing code and using edge cases is still judging code. Automated or otherwise, a human being (or team of them) devised rules for what is considered acceptable code.
| timing code and using edge cases is still judging code |
It's probably judging the result obtained and the time to complete. I doubt the quality of the code is judged - or can ai now do that?
Judging code by results and speed is what I originally stated, speed vs. quality.
Well-written robust code is not encouraged in the slightest. IMO. It appears to be actively discouraged and frowned on with the lust for some nebulous challenge award. Good code takes time and effort to cruft.
The fora here at CPP a while back was used for cheating purposes (my opinion of the situation), the place was flooded with the garbage for months.
If'n you can't tell I don't have a high opinion of those types of sites, they don't encourage good programming practices at all. *SPIT!*
Well-written robust code is not encouraged in the slightest. IMO. It appears to be actively discouraged and frowned on with the lust for some nebulous challenge award. Good code takes time and effort to cruft.
The fora here at CPP a while back was used for cheating purposes (my opinion of the situation), the place was flooded with the garbage for months.
If'n you can't tell I don't have a high opinion of those types of sites, they don't encourage good programming practices at all. *SPIT!*
It's probably judging the result obtained and the time to complete. I doubt the quality of the code is judged - or can ai now do that? |
This is what I meant. Clearly timing and testing are a type of judgement, but anything goes on most of those sites. I don't know that bad code is encouraged, but good/bad/UB etc are ignored. Not sure if their compilers generally accept inline asm or no too. Its the wild west.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.