Take, for instance, a recent example from my "SpareTime" file. I watched some family members play a game of boggle and thought, "Hmmm, I bet I could write code to solve an arbitrary sized board, and do it using both recursion and without."

The hardest part was analyzing how you actually solve it (match words of minimum length to a known dictionary(s) given certain path and adjacency restrictions). Once I realized how it was done, the code came out in an afternoon. It was really a matter of analysis. The data (in this case a 6x6 board of random letters) was not as important as the structure and method.

HOWEVER, if I didn't know how to use lists, recursion and references, didn't understand how to streamline my code and optimize, I'm pretty sure some of my first 8x8 attempts would still be running on one of my servers somewhere.

I'm going to have to agree with Steve Lohr on this one, when he observed that, apparently, knowing how to code leads one to better problem solving, and vice-versa. They are partners in this game. I don't really think one goes without the other. Strong problem solvers make strong coders, and weak, weak IMHO. I think a certain level of problem solving and technique can be learned, but I think it's one of those quirks, either you have it or you don't.

"There are a certain percentage of undergraduates - perhaps two percent or so - who have the mental quirks that make them good at computer programming. They are good, and it just flows out of them….The two percent are the only ones who are really going to make these machines do amazing things. I wish it weren't so, but that's the way it has always been."
Donald Knuth - Stanford University</right>

C-.

quote: <quote>There! I pose to you; there are no Great `programmers`, just great data analysts</quote>

Just because a person can analyze does not mean that person can program efficiently. To me, a great programmer is one who can take what s/he analyzes, flows it efficiently, and codes it following all of the rules that good coders use ie K.I.S.S., readability, efficiency, etc.

So, in my opinion there is a very big difference between a "programmer" and a "great programmer".

If we were arguing symantecs I could do the whole definition thing of "analyst" vs "programmer" but that would be pointless as it is very clear where you are going with this topic within the realms of the job description, if you will, of a programmer.

So, yes, analyzing is most important but a programmer is one who can code what s/he analyzes and a great programmer is one who does it as I stated above.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- Jim
Insert clever comment here...

This reminds me of the quote from Kent Beck (who in anyone's book is a great programmer): "I'm not a great programmer, I'm just a good programmer with great habits."

Chris
M-x auto-bs-mode

++. All problem solving rest on analysis, all analysis rests on logic. The differences are only vocabulary, syntax and experience.

-derby

update: and to quote ESR who's quoting Fred Brooks

Show me your code and conceal your data structures, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your data structures, and I won't usually need your code; it'll be obvious.

That fits nicely with ChOas notion that data analysis is key.

nice sum up!

The Developer can take the real world problem, break it down into pieces (steps, objects, whatever...) and then build those pieces.

The Programmer can write code that executes according to instructions to complete a well-defined task.

The Programmer builds the pieces. The Developer determines which pieces should be built.

Sun is one place that buys into this distinction. At Sun, getting a 'Sun Certified Java Programmer' certification is (can be) a step on the road to getting a 'Sun Certified Java Developer'.

ANYTHING can be done, as long as you know what you want to do..

Those are great news. Then I suppose you can write a perl program that looks at the source of any other given perl program and tells if that program ever ends ?

If you do, don't bother telling me that, just go cash your Turing award and your Hilbert and Godel Honor Badges.

I am willing to pose the following: ANYBODY can program, the problem lies in analysing the data you are presented with.

I'll agree with you on the first point, pretty much anybody can learn to program. Too often programmers try to make what their doing look way more complex than it is. This is seen in just about every other profession as well, and doesn't do any good in those professions either. When properly broken down into their smaller components, all tasks are quite simple.

As for the problem being in analyzing the data, well, pretty much anyone can do that too. As with programming, some people are better than others due to more experience, higher natural ability, being more interested in it, and so on. Analyzing data is part of programming, and if there are great data analysts, then there are also great programmers.

I would have to disagree. There are indeed great programmers. Many are mathematicians or logicians. They discover new algorythms. I would say they are rather great programmers.

I never said there was no such thing as great programmers. I just said that there is a difference between great programmers and just programmers. And just because a person is a great mathematician or a great logician does *not* mean they are great programmers. I don't think you or anyone has actually seen every mathematician's or every logician's or even every professor's code so I'd say that for you to say that every scholar is a great programmer is premature. You simply cannot back that with facts.

My point was that there *is* indeed a such thing as a person being a great programmer. I would also say that I think a programmer is both an analyst AND a coder but not all analysts are programmers in the coding sense.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- Jim
Insert clever comment here...

I think that the order of the posts confused you Jim. My post was in response to ChOas, please check the thread again? :)

Which is why one shouldn't study Object Oriented Programming until one have studied Object Oriented Design.

A good Object Oriented Programmer masters the language he's using to implement the design. But a programmer who cannot start with an existing problem and apply a good design before applying an ever so sofisticated program code is (IMNSHO) only half a programmer.

gav^