this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
93 points (93.5% liked)

Programming

17672 readers
98 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz
93
How do you do, fellow web developers? A growing disconnect. (rakhim.exotext.com)
submitted 1 day ago by tja@sh.itjust.works to c/programming@programming.dev
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

One can argue that any programming is computer science,

One could argue that, but I think it would be a weak argument.

Keeping within the subcategory of software, I think of computer science as the theoretical side and programming as the practical side. The same distinction is sometimes made in other fields, like physics.

Seems to me that the author saw a show written by people with a narrow and shallow understanding of the field. For better or for worse, it happens on TV all the time. If he wants to demonstrate a widespread disconnect in the software community, there are probably better examples out there.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 5 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, computer science is the more about theoretical side of computation and the analysis of algorithms. For example, proving that a certain algorithm is a solution to a problem and has a particular time complexity. That’s more mathematics than practical programming.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

(disclaimer: I haven't read the article, I'm just replying to you because your comment was interesting)

I think your theoretical vs practical framing is useful, but as a (non-computer-)scientist, I find it fascinating to consider how a biomedical scientist uses programming compared to someone whose background is much more grounded on the compsci/IT/programming side.^[1]

[1]: I sometimes joke that, compared to many of my scientist colleagues, I am an exceptional programmer, and this says a lot about the average quality of the code that scientists tend to write when they don't have much dedicated training or experience in programming

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Scientists write code that works for them, so that's fine if the code isn't optimized.

When your software is your product, then it needs to be much more optimized.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 hours ago

It's not fine if the code needs to be used by other scientists though, which it often will be, even within the same research group. I have a friend who worked in a lab where one of their PhD students wrote a bunch of helpful code that was an unmaintainable mess that ended up breaking a lot of work flows at some point a year or so after the creator of it had left. It was kludge upon kludge upon kludge, and the thing that finally broke seemed to be dependency related, but I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on with it (I was asked to take a look).

There's a lot of duplicated effort in science. Scientists tend not to think about stuff like software ecosystems unless they're in a subfield that has been doing computational stuff for a long while, like bioinformatics. When it comes to code, there's a lot of inventing the wheel from scratch and that leads to weird square wheels that work good enough to then have more code built on top of them. Software might not be scientists' product in the same way as it is for IT people, but it often ends up being a part of the wider product of methodological reproducibility

[–] 1hitsong@lemmy.ml 48 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that tracks.

At work someone estimated adding a section of static content to a page that uses React as 3 story points.

They were searching for components that would style the header and paragraph elements just as they wanted them, but were coming up short.

Instead I simply added it with html elements and a couple of lines of CSS.

5 minutes. Done.

😐

[–] techt@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

I thought ambagious was a typo of ambiguous. New word day!

[–] passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Holding their hand through one page in vanilla JS is a great investment in your junior dev if this is an issue

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I swear this isn't a get off my lawn post

Proceeds to spend 5 paragraphs complaining about what people call the original Javascript. He has some valid points, but this is very much an older developer complaining about the new generation of devs.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

I dunno some of these feel like fundamentals that any web dev should know.

You're gonna have headaches down the road if you don't know hiw static html works.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago (4 children)

new generation of devs

The new generation of devs sadly has a lot of people that only can type what they want to achieve into ChatGPT and blindly copy whatever code snippet it comes up with. But they can't develop. Nor do they understand code written by others. They're the reason things like NodeJS's is-even package exists.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 11 points 1 day ago

Published 8 years ago

I didn't know that the new generation of developers were that far along in their careers already.

[–] Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This isn't the new generation of devs. This is just new devs. Some people refuse to grow out of this stage.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

New devs generally suck, I sucked a lot.

The problem I fear today is that there are more crutches new devs can rely on, until they can’t.

And it’s not a sharp boundary between getting by and not being able to work it

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The main issue is that not a lot of companies want and do take the time to train less experienced devs. Every company is expecting new hires to be trained already.

So many new devs need to scrape by with whatever means they have. And it is true is a lot of industries.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

College computer programming programs normally do not train people to immediately work, unless the students spend thousands of hours coding on their own. Most comp sci students avoid this.

So, when a new dev graduates and they did not do that extra work, then the first year of paid work is them putting in those hours while being paid rather than doing it for free

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I am not in the US, so I cannot compare, but people here that go to college equivalent explicitly learn to code.

When people go into computer science at University, they are decent coders and can do a lot of things out of school.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

People learn to pass tests, and do computer labs. They have hands on experience in several computer languages. But that is a far cry from what is really needed.

Probably most schools give the fundamentals regardless of country.

Can’t tell who has talent until they try to work a lot; often the people who do not code on their own are not very good, period

I think a student should at least do a few hours average work each week on their own projects , regardless of tech stack. It really shows after 4 years.

it’s like night and day between those that do this as a hobby and go to school ; verses the people who pass tests and do group projects in the labs but don’t do anything outside of what is required.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

The trend we see in programming is the same trend we see in many sectors. There is a spectrum of skills, and unfortunately, we only talk about the bad programmers and not the good ones.

The reality is that your company probably don't pay for top skills, so they get what they pay for. The pool of worker is spread thin, so the only thing left is the bad programmer.

So diploma mills churn out a maximum of workers to cash in on the situation.

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

More crutches is definitely a problem. Personally, after vocally refusing to use chatgpt for months, my boss has now sat me down and told me to use it because it "halves his development time".

My colleague and boss use it constantly. Guess whose job has become mostly debugging their code when they can't get it to work and don't know why?

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago

That is very frustrating !

[–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I've heard of the term "expert beginners".

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We've been saying that about new devs since there became a second generation of devs

Except when I was a new dev, it was blindly copying stuff from stack overflow

[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 20 hours ago

In Phaedrus, Socrates talks about the invention of writing:
"it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so."

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is a generalization that has some merit. but ultimately, generalizing an entire group of people and making assumptions about them isn't a good way to judge an individuals ability to code.

See what they can do, and then judge.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You must have missed the part where I said a lot of people, not all of them. There are people calling themselves "developer" that shine during the hiring process, but then can't implement a random feature if there's no ready-to-use library for it.

However, this doesn't mean that there still aren't lots of actual developers around, that know what they're doing and can actually code in an actual programming language.

[–] potatopotato@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you want to play true Scotsman, the embedded devs like to make fun of the web devs for being scared of bitfields and refusing to do logic with anything other than string matching and manipulation.

. . .

Secretly it's partially because we're absolutely terrified of strings in any form and simply refuse to use them.

There are a lot of sub disciplines to the field, some benefit a lot from GPT or blindly copying from SA, some don't, but that's ok either way. Keep your skill sets broad and you'll survive.