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.
đ
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
on 24 Dec 14:53
nextcollapse
I swear this isnât 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.
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 canât develop. Nor do they understand code written by others. Theyâre the reason things like NodeJSâs is-even package exists.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
on 24 Dec 15:37
nextcollapse
This is a generalization that has some merit. but ultimately, generalizing an entire group of people and making assumptions about them isnât a good way to judge an individuals ability to code.
You must have missed the part where I said a lot of people, not all of them. There are people calling themselves âdeveloperâ that shine during the hiring process, but then canât implement a random feature if thereâs no ready-to-use library for it.
However, this doesnât mean that there still arenât lots of actual developers around, that know what theyâre doing and can actually code in an actual programming language.
potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Dec 20:46
collapse
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 itâs partially because weâre 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 donât, but thatâs ok either way. Keep your skill sets broad and youâll survive.
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.
threaded - newest
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.
đ
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.
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 canât develop. Nor do they understand code written by others. Theyâre the reason things like NodeJSâs is-even package exists.
This is a generalization that has some merit. but ultimately, generalizing an entire group of people and making assumptions about them isnât a good way to judge an individuals ability to code.
See what they can do, and then judge.
You must have missed the part where I said a lot of people, not all of them. There are people calling themselves âdeveloperâ that shine during the hiring process, but then canât implement a random feature if thereâs no ready-to-use library for it.
However, this doesnât mean that there still arenât lots of actual developers around, that know what theyâre doing and can actually code in an actual programming language.
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 itâs partially because weâre 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 donât, but thatâs ok either way. Keep your skill sets broad and youâll survive.
I didnât know that the new generation of developers were that far along in their careers already.
Weâve 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
This isnât the new generation of devs. This is just new devs. Some people refuse to grow out of this stage.
Iâve heard of the term âexpert beginnersâ.
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 canât.
And itâs not a sharp boundary between getting by and not being able to work it
Holding their hand through one page in vanilla JS is a great investment in your junior dev if this is an issue
I thought ambagious was a typo of ambiguous. New word day!
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.