[Martyn.Rae]

Tricky one this is. Personally, I believe that talent plays a very large role in developing software (more specifically programming). You can learn a programming language very easily. Hell, you can learn the syntax and semantics of a thousand programming languages. That does not make you a good programmer. What makes a good programmer. Well here is my formula for determining a good programmer.

If you are 60% certified-crazy, 40% stubborn (will not let a problem or a computer get the better of you), 8% seeing the world in a different way to others, 2% know the programming language you are writing in (although sometimes that does not help in languages such as lisp).

[KYA]

Talent, but not with programming. It's problem solving. If you're good at math you should be good at programming.

[NickDMax]

Programming IS like any other science -- a mixture of logic, luck, skill, and talent. There has been some research on why some people just can't seem to grasp programming. Really from a programmer's perspective there is no reason why anyone should not be able to be an expert programmer. It is a logical process so there is no reason why anyone with the capacity for abstract thought should not be able to program.

That being said, some people really find programming difficult, and even within the set of programmers some are just not very good even after years of experience.

Same is true with any other science though.

[baavgai]

KYA, on 11 February 2010 - 09:19 AM, said:

If you're good at math you should be good at programming.

You insensitive clod, I suck at math. ;)

Wait, skill isn't an option? And what does science have to do with anything? You're mixing polarities. It's "art and science" and "skill and talent", and yes, it's all of the above.

There is a talent plays a role in programming, a knack where some people just get it. The same can be said of anything; music, sports, math, chess, cooking, construction. anything.

Talent is a good place to start, but it's not a binary quality. No one has zero talent or all talent, so much degrees of aptitude. Beyond that, work is needed. The very talented might achieve a degree of proficiency faster, but those that must work may value their skill more. History is littered with burnt out prodigies.

[NickDMax]

Personally I find computer programming dead easy, I find the challenging part is understanding all of the related fields -- it is not enough to just be good at writing code, you also have to understand mathematics when your models are mathematical, physics when you model physical systems, economics, business, medicine, biology, chemistry... that is not even counting having to know about platforms and technologies.

You can't really program a computer unless you really understand your problem space. Many people are plenty capable of writing programs (hey they passed into to programming) but for some reason when you start talking about bits and bytes and then throw in "seemingly unrelated" terms from the problem space (like Income or Chemical formula etc.) they break down. The mapping from the abstract world of computers to the "real world problem" seems to confuse many beginners. They are fine as long as the mapping is simple but shutdown when it becomes multi-leveled.

[KYA]

baavgai, on 11 February 2010 - 08:49 AM, said:

KYA, on 11 February 2010 - 09:19 AM, said:

If you're good at math you should be good at programming.

You insensitive clod, I suck at math.

I should have said it isn't an inverse quality as well. One can not be good at math and be a whizbang programmer; however, I have found a strong correlation between those who are good at math and those who are good at programming.

I imagine a Venn diagram.

[Martyn.Rae]

NickDMax said

Quote

You can't really program a computer unless you really understand your problem space. Many people are plenty capable of writing programs (hey they passed into to programming) but for some reason when you start talking about bits and bytes and then throw in "seemingly unrelated" terms from the problem space (like Income or Chemical formula etc.) they break down. The mapping from the abstract world of computers to the "real world problem" seems to confuse many beginners.

I have the same problem with end-users ... a little knowledge is dangerous.

[KYA]

Heh, "Power Users"

[baavgai]

KYA, on 11 February 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

I imagine a Venn diagram.

Ack, more math! ;) Seriously, just busting.

I actually enjoy many elements of mathematical study. The ones I have a talent for...

My brain functions rather oddly, though I doubt uniquely. I'm mildly dyslexic and thats not so much a letter thing as a symbol thing. As a result, I could sometimes stare at my math work and just not "see" where I'd screwed up. In spite of this, though I believe because of it, I'm good at making logical connections and spotting failures in same.

Computers are an iterative process. You manipulate the symbols and then ask for validation. No need to worry if the brain is messing with you, the impartial third party will let you know. It's like a spell checker for logic.

[Core]

I say that programming is 10% talent and 90% practice. You have to constantly work on your knowledge and skills to make it work for you. There are people out there who don't have a talent for programming, but constant practice (for a long time) helped them become very good at programming. Pretty much refers to a lot (not every) of jobs.

Example? Right here:
http://railstips.org...have-no-talent/

[NickDMax]

Quote

I'm mildly dyslexic and thats not so much a letter thing as a symbol thing.

Strangly enough I too am dyslexic -- for me it is a number/letter thing. I can't remember a telephone number, I can't spell, and I have to try very hard not to screw up.

I "Compensate Really Well" as the evaluator put it. For example I spell mostly my muscle memory. I.e. I know how to type words, but I don't really know if they are spelled correctly unless some program tells me so. As for mathematics, strangely I have a knack for symbolic mathematics. But I don't skip steps (even obvious ones to other people, like combining like terms or rearranging an equation, I have to do it on paper step by step.)

AS for programming... I don't know why I am good at it, I certainly know that my dyslexia hurts a little (thank goodness for compilers) but I find programming very easy even given its strict syntactical requirements.

I agree with core -- it takes hard work for me. Maybe the logic I find easy, but I WORK at programming. I read TONS, I write hundreds of lines of code a week, my abilities grow with time and experience. It is not all some natural talent.

[SwiftStriker00]

My teacher wrote on the board, 1st day of class:

Quote

Programming is (int)(50% practice, 30% patience, 30% luck)

it took me a while to realize what he did there since he never explained it, but his point stands. Devotion to programming will make you a better programmer, but there is an inherent thought process of problem solving that does help

[KYA]

Apparently that teacher was bad at math too

50+30+30 = 110

[SwiftStriker00]

Actually (int)( .5 + .3 + .3 ) == 1