Is it possible for a programmer to recognise when he or she is not a good programmer? Many code quality discussions centre on identifying how bad other coders are...I would like to know if anyone has recognised the possibility that they themselves might be bad programmers; that their programming quality may be insufficient. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
Not usually. Read Dunning and Kruger's paper, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Usually if you're able to recognize that there's a problem, there's hope. |
|||||
|
|
There's a saying that goes,
I think it's definitely possible for a person to take an objective look at one's code, see what's wrong with it, and do what it takes to get better. Through this reflection and continued education, even today's bad programmer could become next year's best. There's another saying that goes something like:
and I think it also applies here. |
|||||
|
|
No. A programmer who realizes they are a bad programmer is not a bad programmer. It is precisely the point at which you realize you're a bad programmer that you are no longer a bad programmer. A person who realizes this is a person who is able to self improve and analyze their programming behaviors which makes them "bad", inherently raising the quality of produced code. The mark of a good programmer is not the quality of code they currently write, but the quality of code they strive for. A bad programmer is one who codes away blissfully ignorant of the poor quality of code he is producing. All the while typically thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Skill level is an entirely different beast and one which a good programmer should be able to identify himself at. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Positive indicators:
Negative indicators:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Personally, I'm a fan of WTFs per minute:
The serious part of my answer is that I think code reviews are a great way to evaluate your competency as a programmer, compared to your peers. Is it a completely objective standard? No, but I think it's the closest that you'll get, as long as you're working with some good developers who are thorough about code reviews and meticulous in their own practice of quality standards. Basically, if you notice that your colleagues are consistently finding a large number of defects in your reviews, then you may need to take some time to evaluate what you're doing wrong and how you can improve. Of course, you should always be doing that self-evaluation anyway, but when your code reviews are full of problems it may be a sign that you're in need of some serious re-education. More generally, while it's possible to evaluate one's own skill, it is not possible to do so in a vacuum. You need to look at other code and compare it to your own, get feedback from others, and compare your track record for product quality to industry standards. All of that said, while I do think that it is possible to evaluate one's own skill with at least a modicum of objectivity and accuracy, not everyone has that capacity for introspection. |
||||
|
|
|
This is kind of a strange question - I like it. It's got a nice humany smell to it. :) I would have to give this as an answer: If a person realizes that their coding skills aren't up to par, then they are probably not actually a bad programmer - just one who has less experience than others. The fact that this person has the self-introspection to question how good they are means they have the thought-processes to make a really good programmer. That said, Wayne's answer is also interesting. I will comment on it specifically. |
||||
|
|
|
You're a bad coder when you take on tasks beyond your skills without letting others know the risks in time, accuracy and performance. If you don't know how to program, you're just not a programmer at all. |
||||
|
|
|
To the opposite side of your question: In my experience, the guy that thinks he is the best programmer on the team is probably the worst programmer on the team. |
||||
|
|
|
Yes; in fact I know I'm a bad programmer. Not bad in that I don't understand the concepts or the work, but "bad" in the sense that I'm not motivated by low-level coding issues and do it out of necessity (i.e. a paycheck). I understand enough development to do an okay job at it, but my real passion is the high-level system design and overall problem solving, not coding data access layers or a loop or binding data to controls. |
|||||
|
|
I know my quality is insufficient, I'm always stumbling upon more elegant methods of solving yesterdays problems, though I'm not sure that makes me bad programmer |
||||
|
|
|
I think that would be hard since people tend not to admit their own mistakes and put themselves and their work on pedestals. Frankly, this is why one should subject themselves to code reviews and the criticism that comes with it, since it's hard to judge yourself as harshly as someone else would. As druttka mentioned, I would not like seeing code that I wrote years ago. I would hate myself. |
||||
|
|
|
Only 1 in 200 coders can solve FizzBuzz and I am the 1. 99% of all coworkers write goto epics worthy of TheDailyWTF, but I am in the 1%. No one really understands the true meaning of the Agile Manifesto, except for me. Unit testing is non-existent in nearly all code bases, but I shoot for 100% coverage. I'm humble though, so I'll admit I'm only at 99.999% ... See the pattern? If you listened to what most developers say, you would assume that all coders are either straight out of the Matrix or a monkey sitting at a keyboard. Despite all of the 1-to-10 productivity studies, most of us are really about a 5. When I say "most", I do not mean "everyone not reading this". I mean very precisely that if you are reading this then you are most likely an average programmer. This might be an ego boost to some of the less confident, or an ego hit to the more "self-assured", but there is really no way to get around the fact that the average programmer is...average. |
||||
|
|
|
Me? No. It's like, asking the only person in a village who runs, whether they are a fast runner. Because I work in a vacuum, with no other programmers to critique my work, no mentors, no managers with coding experience, etc. I wish I could work with other programmers. I'm envious of those who do. |
||||
|
|
|
Yes, and I like these programmers. They are more apt to improve or change jobs. I don't like the ones that don't recognize that they are. There are more of them around. I like even less the ones that are bad, but think they are great. There are even more of them. No matter if I like it or not. I still try to help them. I also try to help them find a new career because I think it's important to enjoy what you are doing and to be good at what you are doing. |
||||
|
|
|
It depends... For straight up pure coding skills, generally no. But the problem is that there are various different ways to be a "bad programmer", depending on context. Some of these can be harder to be self-aware of. STRAIGHT UP "PURE CODING" SKILLS This is actually the toughest to be self-aware of. Most of us like to think that we have "l33t coding skillz" and we don't want to admit otherwise. Admittedly this is a bit abstract, and the difference between this and some aspects of the following are a bit arbitrary. But bear with me. POOR "CONTEXTUAL" SKILLS Wayne M's answer is an example of what I'm going to try to explain here. Basically, I think a lot of people who are seen as "bad programmers" in a certain light are not necessarily outright bad programmers as much as they are tested in a situation which isn't conducive to them being seen as "good" and productive. And visa versa - some relatively average programmers, when working a certain flow which is just perfect for them, can be seen as quite good and productive. It's a sliding scale. A huge complicating factor are the degrees of "supporting skills" that people have. For example, I've worked with some very good programmers - who were great coders when taken in a vacuum, but had atrocious writing/documentation skills. This didn't matter much in the small, close-knit Agile group on that job, but it would be a killer on a huge Waterfall project - one which is highly depending on them commenting and documenting their work thoroughly. They were simply the sort of people who seemed to be born without the part of the brain to explain things well in writing. So in one job they were the team rockstar. But in a documentation-heavy Waterfall job, they might have been seen as outright "bad programmers". Another common example is GUI design, visual creativity and usability. Some people are just terrible at it, even though they are great programmers on the back end. The problem is, someone who creates a horrible-looking UI isn't necessarily a "bad programmer" (ie. They might be great for a more backend and business logic job), but they can often come across this way when "tested" by an environment which is heavy on a certain skill application context. CONCLUSION I think it's hard to be aware of how good or bad you are on a very base, "pure coding skills" level, but easier to be aware of shortcomings in highly contextualized "supporting" and "soft" skills. The problem is that one can mask the other, and very few programmers are great all-round rockstars for every possible context and type of job. Finally (this is similar to what Wayne M's answer talks about): One thing I admittedly have is a motivation problem. Basically I love programming on a very pure, abstract level, but then when I have to work for someone else and grind away at nitty gritty details of some boring business system I have no personal interest in, I easily lose patience and focus. Motivation plummets, work suffers. I'm sure it made me look like a "bad programmer" in the past, but it had nothing to do with straight up coding skills. Having intrinsic motivation is very important to some people, and others can just work on whatever random project you put them on. It doesn't necessarily reflect coding skills per se. |
||||
|
|
|
Every thing is relative.. To Properly gauge this one should compare his/her self to his/her Peers/Coworkers. My rule of thumb to Jr Dev who I am mentoring is: If you think your are a good programmer BUT everyone around you is better than you, because they are all GREAT programmers. You need to do some self reflection. Some people are better than other at self refection, It has nothing to so with programming. If you think you are the best you are wrong. If you think your are Great you are most likely* wrong. If you think you are good, you most likely* are. The better you think your are the More likely* it is that your self assessment is wrong. If you think you suck you need a new profession. If you Really are the best around.. You need to be in a larger group. Because your are not the best. *I can't stress the word likely enough One more point… If you are indeed in the sacred top 5%. You a making are BIG career error. No one should be in the same position long enough to become the top 5%. Unless you truly love what you don't value career advancement, and want to do that for the rest of your life. |
||||
|
|
