November 9, 2009 at 3:11 pm
As a Tester, Kaner Falk and Nguyen are the father son and holy ghost. Mind you if you mention that you are a certified tester I reach for the trap door lever and hope the piranha enjoy their lunch...
November 9, 2009 at 3:11 pm
As a Tester, Kaner Falk and Nguyen are the father son and holy ghost. Mind you if you mention that you are a certified tester I reach for the trap door lever and hope the piranha enjoy their lunch...
November 9, 2009 at 3:17 pm
How about extending the thesis a little further? I would suggest that being asked irrelevant questions indicates that employment would be better found elsewhere. Refusing to work for an unimaginative fool should not be considered a hardship.
November 9, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I have not read the book; but, I wonder if they have people like John Backus, Naur, Knuth, or Grace Hopper and if the guy that was quoted knows who they are. The industry turns over every three years--at least it has since I started programming in 1970. Content rules!
November 10, 2009 at 1:21 am
K. Brian Kelley (11/9/2009)
Or to put in a more understandable context... we say it's important to know the guys who developed jet aircraft but we don't think it's important to know the Wright brothers when it comes to knowing about aircraft. Which, by using that book as the litmus test, is what the OP is saying to do.
Again, that is a pretty poor analogy - Wilbur and Orville may have got the first official powered flight into the record books, but their input to the process was fairly minimal, and any number of European and probably a few other american experimentors would have claimed the same feat within a few years, as the only real technical issue was getting an engine with a high enough power-to-weight ratio; there were plenty of good gliders around by then. Besides, knowing Frank Whittle's story tells us far more about life.
November 10, 2009 at 3:35 am
Or to put in a more understandable context... we say it's important to know the guys who developed jet aircraft but we don't think it's important to know the Wright brothers when it comes to knowing about aircraft. Which, by using that book as the litmus test, is what the OP is saying to do.
Who is this we? I have never been interviewed by Rolls Royce or Boeing. Have you? I would be extremely surprised if there was a historical question or "Name the people interviewed for this book on aircraft design and describe what they are known for...". Being asked pertinent questions on aerodynamics, thermodynamics or user interface design (depending on what the role is) would not be a surprise.
I must say that I don't get it. I would like to think that people knew who these people are, and it seems most of us do regardless of which side of the debate we stand, but the question is whether an interviewee is worthless if he doesn't. Some say not necessarily (that includes me) some say this is so (my understanding is that includes K. Brian Kelley and Gift).
The truth be known, most of the people in this industry would not pass the "bar" I would like this industry to set. I still think that this would be better self-regulated like the law and medical professions. Would I pass? Go ahead...make up your own minds 😉
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 10, 2009 at 7:18 am
K. Brian Kelley (11/9/2009)
I think my response would be along the lines of, "Why that[/i] book? 280 names were submitted. 15 were selected, partially on the basis of their willingness to do an interview (for a book they likely weren't compensated for). It misses big names like Ritchie (C language), like Larry Wall (Perl), like Cutler (since we're talking Windows), like McConnell (Code Complete). So why that book? What makes it so special in the literature that you're using it as a filter question?"
Sorry I haven't made it all the way through the (as of now) 6 pages of responses, but I wanted to agree with your post.
[EDIT: OK, I've gone through the rest of the posts so far. Good stuff -- I especially like Jeff's Titanic questions 😀 -- I don't have time to comment in detail, but so far, I stand by what I wrote below.]
Furthermore, it's not clear to me how the term "identify" is defined according to the interviewer. Do they mean (1) name a person out of the book without being told anyone in it? Or do they mean (2) describe who the person is and what their programming contributions are if they are given the name?
I think (1) is simply a bad gotcha question and demonstrates little beyond superficial name-dropping trivia ability or perhaps curiosity about tables of contents.
I think (2) is a more substantive question, but even then it strikes me as unnecessarily draconian to declare a person a no-hire if they can't identify someone from a particular book. As you asked, Why that book?
Ultimately, even if the interviewer is asking question (2), and even if we agree that question (2) is fair, I still think the meat of the discussion will revolve around what the programmers (a) did, or (b) contributed, or (c) helped others do to advance the field. So it is entirely possible that someone may somehow have learned (a), (b), and (c) -- i.e., the "whats" and "hows" of those programming contributions -- without happening to know who got credit for it.
It strikes me as unfair to have that person summarily ruled out of a position because they didn't know the names from the book. Now, if the discussion continues and the lack of name knowledge indicates some other lack of curiosity about the field, or betrays an arrogance about acknowledging who came before, acknowledging credit, and so on, that seems like a valid reason to disqualify a candidate. But the lack of superficial name recognition doesn't seem to me like a valid reason to do so.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
November 10, 2009 at 9:42 am
Gary Istvan Varga (11/10/2009)
I must say that I don't get it. I would like to think that people knew who these people are, and it seems most of us do regardless of which side of the debate we stand, but the question is whether an interviewee is worthless if he doesn't. Some say not necessarily (that includes me) some say this is so (my understanding is that includes K. Brian Kelley and Gift).The truth be known, most of the people in this industry would not pass the "bar" I would like this industry to set. I still think that this would be better self-regulated like the law and medical professions. Would I pass? Go ahead...make up your own minds 😉
Gift and I aren't saying that if you don't know who those 15 are you are worthless. The original blog poster did. We're saying that he is wrong. In order to work on planes do you need to know the Wright brothers and their original design? No, you don't. As Mike was saying, you need to know the current understanding of aerodynamics, of materials, etc. And I agree with Mike, that's what you DO have to know.
To make matters worse, the original poster is saying those 15 names are key because he's focusing on that book. And that leads to a problem. You have people in that book who built on technology (Netscape browser) but the original person who developed that whole technology area isn't included. And the OP, by narrowly focusing on that one book is saying you have to know the guy who wrote the Netscape browser (or one of the other 14) or you aren't hirable, in his opinion. So even if you know the guy who wrote Mosaic, which preceded Netscape, but you just don't happen to know the Netscape one, sorry, you're out. And to Mike, that's where my analogy comes in. I would disagree with you about the importance of the Wright brothers because if you look further into the fact that their aircraft were selected and put into service by the US military, it goes beyond mere "discovery" into starting aircraft into becoming a useful industry.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 10, 2009 at 9:58 am
So we agree 🙂
How on earth did we get this far thinking otherwise?
I take your point now that it is a complete farce that some of the people mentioned are the ones standing on the shoulders of giants as opposed to the giants themselves!!!!
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 10, 2009 at 11:18 am
A good debate which I enjoyed. I suspect that we all agree that, whereas it is silly to dismiss, or prejudge, the abilities of a programmer because he is not aware of the contribution of the coders listed in 'coders at work', it is quite an idea for a programmer to be aware of the likes of Knuth, Turing, Babbage, Linus Torvalds, Charles Moore, Tim Berners Lee, Bjarne Stroustrup, or Anders Hejlsberg.
Obviously, I've been taking a slightly extreme viewpoint in order to try to crystallise the debate, but after the work that Richard Morris, Andrew Clarke and I put into contacting a number of great programmers of all ages and backgrounds, such as Linus Torvalds, Charles Moore, Tim Berners Lee, Bjarne Stroustrup, or Anders Hejlsberg; and interviewing them for Simple-talk for the Geek-of-the-week [/url]column ( http://www.simple-talk.com/opinion/geek-of-the-week/ ) , we'd all want to believe the importance to a professional programmer of at least vaguely knowing about their contribution to IT as we know it today. If therefore, you'd like to give yourself a crash course in some of the greats, please give them a read.
You'll see that most of these guys aren't head-in-the-clouds theoreticians, but real programmers, or DBAs. Knuth, for example, wasn't just a mathematician: he also wrote Tex, one of the most sophisticated digital typographical systems in the world, which is still used today. It is a glorious program to read and use. Playing guitar with one's teeth was nothing compared with the star qualities of Knuth. (we did contact him in order to interview him but it didn't really come to anything). I bet that any engineer who works on Jet engines knows about Frank Whittle's work, that all the NASA scientists know vaguely about Werner Von Braun, and Doctors know about Louis Pasteur. I'd really like to think that programmers are aware of the work of the likes of some of our Geeks of the week.
With four obvious exceptions, the programmers in 'coders at Work' are mostly B-list compared with our GOWs. However, I expect that Richard Morris will be interviewing as many as he can over the next few months.
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
November 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm
There may be jobs where knowing the answers to those questions would be important. I have encountered consulting companies that seem more interested in the “star quality” of their consultants than their ability to deliver projects. The ability to sound like you were the one who invented to compiler, browser, or world wide web may be more important for getting the job than the ability to solve a customers problems.
November 10, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (11/10/2009)
There may be jobs where knowing the answers to those questions would be important. I have encountered consulting companies that seem more interested in the “star quality” of their consultants than their ability to deliver projects. The ability to sound like you were the one who invented to compiler, browser, or world wide web may be more important for getting the job than the ability to solve a customers problems.
There are other occasions where it can be REALLY useful. I actually got a job offer, because I happened to know that the person I was interviewing with was one of those folks "on the list", and managed to turn a tough interview around because of it. Not that I schoozed him, but it does help to see the "ambush" from the master on it way to locking down around your neck.
As to consultants - it's a natural fit. You're being brought in as an expert, so showing up with credentials like "I invented <insert your favorite feature>" does go a long way. Still, in the end you still need to be able to produce (or have a team that can produce).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
November 10, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Matt Miller (#4) (11/10/2009)
Michael Valentine Jones (11/10/2009)
There may be jobs where knowing the answers to those questions would be important. I have encountered consulting companies that seem more interested in the “star quality” of their consultants than their ability to deliver projects. The ability to sound like you were the one who invented to compiler, browser, or world wide web may be more important for getting the job than the ability to solve a customers problems.There are other occasions where it can be REALLY useful. I actually got a job offer, because I happened to know that the person I was interviewing with was one of those folks "on the list", and managed to turn a tough interview around because of it. Not that I schoozed him, but it does help to see the "ambush" from the master on it way to locking down around your neck.
As to consultants - it's a natural fit. You're being brought in as an expert, so showing up with credentials like "I invented <insert your favorite feature>" does go a long way. Still, in the end you still need to be able to produce (or have a team that can produce).
Of course, that assumes that all consultants actually produce. I know a manager who insists that "consult" = "con" + "insult". (Doesn't apply to all, but sure seems to apply to some.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
November 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Grant Fritchey (11/9/2009)
I realize I'm not terribly well educated... but I didn't recognize a single name on that list. I must not know what I'm doing. I'd better go tell my boss to fire me.
I recognised a few, but couldn't say what most of them were famous for. When I looked a couple up, I knew about whatever it was, just couldn't match a name to it.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
November 10, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Heh... Come to think of it, I believe it would be more appropriate to ask if they know the likes and works of some of the great folks here on SSC. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 64 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply