This reader also has trouble with that source whose author appears not to know the distinction between his word, "rebuffs," and something whose meaning is closer to the intent (as inferred from context): "rebutts" or possibly even "refutes."
Worse, that article lacks another word, "aptitude," which describes at attribute that's almost certainly variable... and relevant.
UPDATE: shamed by the typo in "distinction" that I failed to notice during initial proofreading; now corrected. Aaaaargh!
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Yeah, that notion always seemed to be a better soundbite for selling books, not a hard and fast rule.
| [reply] |
Yeah, very interesting point, my immediate reaction might also have been to refer to the 10,000 hours thing.
But at the same time, I know that most people I have seen in development teams will never be really good programmers, even after 10,000 hours or even twice as many of development, let alone real hackers. Perhaps only 10 to 20% of them, at most. Talent or intelligence may probably have some role, but dedication and commitment even much more.
To become really good at programming, you really have to love doing it so much that, maybe, you write a new open-source application or start learning a new language when you get back home in the evening. Or something weird like that, whatever. But clearly something that the majority of paid developers probably won't do.
Having said that, I still believe that there is some merit in the 10,000 hours (or ten years) idea: even if you are very talented, you also need a lot of experience to get really good. Some particularly gifted people may achieve that in 7,000 or perhaps even 5,000 hours, others may need more than 10,000, but clearly a lot of hours of practice is needed. Practice and real dedication, of course.
| [reply] |
