The Perils of Java Schools
Moderator: General Moderators
The Perils of Java Schools
I suspect I'll have a flamage coming, but oh well. I would hope this spurns conversation instead of some toes being stepped on.
http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/TheP ... hools.html
http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/TheP ... hools.html
Entirely true. But at the same time, a bit off the mark. The fact is that 99% of programmers are working on Yet Another Accounting Application, for which Java (or PHP, Perl, Ruby, etc) is fine. They wouldn't need to use recursion or pointers even if they knew what they were.
PS. Recursion and pointers are easy anyway. I never did see why people find them so confusing.
PS. Recursion and pointers are easy anyway. I never did see why people find them so confusing.
Only within the context of application developement is it off the mark, and he states as much, tho not in the same words.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00319.html
The implication is that being good at application development doesn't make one a great programmer. The overall thrust is that colleges are turning out application developers at the expense of creating genuine CS guys. He aims at this same target here...from the article wrote: Now, don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong with Java as an implementation language.
Wait a minute, I want to modify that statement. I'm not claiming, in this particular article, that there's anything wrong with Java as an implementation language. There are lots of things wrong with it but those will have to wait for a different article.
Instead what I'd like to claim is that Java is not, generally, a hard enough programming language that it can be used to discriminate between great programmers and mediocre programmers. It may be a fine language to work in, but that's not today's topic. I would even go so far as to say that the fact that Java is not hard enough is a feature, not a bug, but it does have this one problem.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00319.html
That may be true, but have you paid attention to the number of questions that crop up here that are a lack of understanding or even an awareness of recursion?PS. Recursion and pointers are easy anyway. I never did see why people find them so confusing.
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Although Joel makes a couple of valid points, he also makes a couple of mistakes in his post (Who cares if they teach one, two or zillion languages? It's all about training your brain to solve the puzzle with the given pieces...)
Anyway, if you think that people can't be good programmers because they don't know how pointers or recursion work, you should read
EDIT (forgot a l in html)
The story of Mel.
Anyway, if you think that people can't be good programmers because they don't know how pointers or recursion work, you should read
EDIT (forgot a l in html)
The story of Mel.
Last edited by timvw on Sun Jan 01, 2006 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
We had a variant of this same discussion in another thread.. basically, should CS make learning easier, or harder?
While Joel is a relatively bright guy, his point of view is often (wildly) off the mark.
This is a good example. One point he makes is "I can't understand why the professors on the curriculum committees at CS schools have allowed their programs to be dumbed down to the point where not only can't they produce working programmers, they can't even produce CS grad students who might get PhDs and compete for their jobs. "
You cannot be a *working programmer* without knowing pointers? That point is the underpinning for the majority of the article, and I don't think any intelligent person is really going to buy that. The number of programming languages (and jobs to implement in those languages) that don't require a knowledge of pointers is (far) more than zero. He even cites Java as just such a language, and there is no shortage of Java jobs out there. Is that the elite best of the best of programming jobs? I'll agree with Joel that no, its probably not.
His whole post is superiority and bias in the form of "Yeah, but I learned it another way, and that is why I'm so good". This is a logical fallacy - he's assuming that the method of his learning produced the result. Its far from a clear cause/effect.
He brings up the perfect counterpoint to his argument: Graduates. The number of graduates is *decreasing*, not increasing, and that is happening for the first time in decades. The school system needs to address that, or else the IT workforce is going to be increasingly less educated, as we promote and place people without a college degree to do the jobs because there are no college graduates available.
I made most of my points on this issue in the other topic, but to summarize, there are certainly more than a few people that disagree with Joel. I'd say he's in the minority in his opinion, but that seems fairly obvious, even by the comments in his article.
While Joel is a relatively bright guy, his point of view is often (wildly) off the mark.
This is a good example. One point he makes is "I can't understand why the professors on the curriculum committees at CS schools have allowed their programs to be dumbed down to the point where not only can't they produce working programmers, they can't even produce CS grad students who might get PhDs and compete for their jobs. "
You cannot be a *working programmer* without knowing pointers? That point is the underpinning for the majority of the article, and I don't think any intelligent person is really going to buy that. The number of programming languages (and jobs to implement in those languages) that don't require a knowledge of pointers is (far) more than zero. He even cites Java as just such a language, and there is no shortage of Java jobs out there. Is that the elite best of the best of programming jobs? I'll agree with Joel that no, its probably not.
His whole post is superiority and bias in the form of "Yeah, but I learned it another way, and that is why I'm so good". This is a logical fallacy - he's assuming that the method of his learning produced the result. Its far from a clear cause/effect.
He brings up the perfect counterpoint to his argument: Graduates. The number of graduates is *decreasing*, not increasing, and that is happening for the first time in decades. The school system needs to address that, or else the IT workforce is going to be increasingly less educated, as we promote and place people without a college degree to do the jobs because there are no college graduates available.
I made most of my points on this issue in the other topic, but to summarize, there are certainly more than a few people that disagree with Joel. I'd say he's in the minority in his opinion, but that seems fairly obvious, even by the comments in his article.
Do you really need a degree to work in IT? I don't think so.Roja wrote:He brings up the perfect counterpoint to his argument: Graduates. The number of graduates is *decreasing*, not increasing, and that is happening for the first time in decades. The school system needs to address that, or else the IT workforce is going to be increasingly less educated, as we promote and place people without a college degree to do the jobs because there are no college graduates available.
Nope. I didn't say you do.onion2k wrote:Do you really need a degree to work in IT? I don't think so.
I did however say that not having an degree means you are less educated. Granted, in this discussion, I'm defining that as the lack of a degree, which is certainly not always a perfect match to educated, but I think its a reasonable comment for this context.
The point being, the more candidates in IT that have degrees, the more overall education there will be in IT. Thats a positive to strive for, even if "educated" doesn't include people that know pointers and recursion as well as Joel.
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
While I agree with most everything you say...Roja wrote:Nope. I didn't say you do.onion2k wrote:Do you really need a degree to work in IT? I don't think so.
I did however say that not having an degree means you are less educated. Granted, in this discussion, I'm defining that as the lack of a degree, which is certainly not always a perfect match to educated, but I think its a reasonable comment for this context.
The point being, the more candidates in IT that have degrees, the more overall education there will be in IT. Thats a positive to strive for, even if "educated" doesn't include people that know pointers and recursion as well as Joel.
I can't agree that NOT having a degree makes you less educated...but I suppose it depends on what you mean by educated...
I dropped out in Gr. 10...been programming for a majority of my life...
Completely self taught...well thats kind of a misnomer...cuz obviously I learned from someone (via articles, books, forums, BBS, etc...)
And....now i've grown tired of defending my skillset
So i'll stop right here
The point being...I agree, that Joel guy...slightly radical in his beliefs
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Just because something is easier to learn doesn't mean it's a bad thing to learn. Technology is always moving forward and new languages will keep surfacing, each one perhaps making certain tasks a little easier or cleaner -- that's not bad, that's just technology evolving. You have to move with the times.
Granted, it's easier to pick between good and bad devlopers in a language like C but you can still see differences in any language.
Hell.... If I got hung up on one language and nothing else there's a good chance I'd be out of the job in 30 years time.
Granted, it's easier to pick between good and bad devlopers in a language like C but you can still see differences in any language.
Hell.... If I got hung up on one language and nothing else there's a good chance I'd be out of the job in 30 years time.